Martha Sarah Young Against Arthur Macvean
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Rae |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] CSOH 133 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 26 August 2014 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Date | 26 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | PD706/13 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
| |
|
| [2014] CSOH 133
|
| PD706/13
| OPINION OF LADY RAE
in the cause
MARTHA SARAH YOUNG
Pursuer;
against
ARTHUR MacVEAN
Defender:
________________
|
Pursuer: Clarke QC and Forsyth; BLM
Defender: Milligan QC; bto
26 August 2014
Introduction
[1] This is an action for damages arising out of a tragic road traffic incident on 1 June 2010 when David Adam Young (the deceased) who was born on 7 March 1984 was killed by a dangerous driver. The pursuer is the mother of the deceased.
[2] At around 4.30pm on 1 June 2010 the deceased was walking on the pavement of Danes Drive, Scotstoun, Glasgow when he was struck by a motor vehicle, a Vauxhall Vectra car registration number V997 EEH driven by the defender. The defender was driving dangerously. He lost control of his vehicle which mounted the pavement, striking the deceased. The defender was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Although parties and witnesses referred to this incident in the course of the proof as a road traffic “accident”, in view of the nature of this incident, I have attempted, unless quoting witnesses, to refrain from using the term “accident”.
[3] Liability in the case was, for the purposes of the present action, admitted and the only issues before me were firstly, whether the pursuer met the criteria to be classed as a secondary victim and secondly, the levels of quantum.
Evidence
[4] There was little if any dispute in the evidence. The principal witness was the pursuer. She gave some evidence of her history and this was supplemented to some extent by information provided to the psychiatrists who had examined her. The following historical background of the pursuer is based principally on her own evidence but I have included information which I noted later in the proof from what the pursuer had told the psychiatrists. The pursuer was in my view an impressive, truthful and reliable witness who provided her evidence in a dignified and restrained way. There was no sense that the witness exaggerated the impact which the death of her son had had upon her. The pursuer was aged 59 at the date of proof. She had suffered previously the unexpected and sudden death of three of her close relatives. When she was aged 21 her father had left the house and had suddenly died in the middle of the street, having suffered a stroke. It appeared that had had a significant affect upon her. She married at the age of 27 and had two children, namely, the deceased and her second child, Stephanie, born in 1992. Her husband worked as a pipe fitter on oil rigs in the North Sea. Sometime in 1992 when Stephanie was only four weeks old her husband left the family home to work off-shore. She recollected that her son had accompanied his father to the train station. When the boy returned he told his mother that his father had lifted him up and reminded him to look after his mother and younger sister. Some days later, while speaking to her husband on the telephone, he indicated that as the weather was bad he would not be working that day. Shortly thereafter she heard the news on television of a helicopter crash in the North Sea. She believed, having regard to her previous telephone conversation with him, that her husband would not have been involved. Sometime later at approximately 2am the following morning she received a telephone call to be told that her husband was missing. She subsequently discovered that her husband had been on the helicopter when it crashed into the sea. The pursuer was seriously traumatised by this event. In hindsight she acknowledges that she may well also have been suffering from post natal depression at the time. She had considerable difficulties in looking after the baby, Stephanie. As a result, family members took over much of the role of bringing the child up until she was approximately five.
[5] The relevance of this background is in relation to the very close relationship which the pursuer developed with her son as he grew up. She spoke of him as taking over some of the roles of his father such as undertaking jobs in the house. She described her son as supportive and as being a “model son”. She admitted possibly being overprotective of him. She attempted to be both his mother and father. The deceased stayed at home for much of his young life. He was in regular employment and contributed financially to the family home. He had purchased his own flat in which he lived for a relatively short time. He found it difficult financially to support himself there. He subsequently rented that flat out and returned to his family home. When he lived away from home he visited his mother on an almost daily basis. He did odd jobs round the house. Examples were provided: fixing a fault on a burglar alarm, tidying the garden and building garden furniture. The pursuer was unable to quantify how much money he contributed to the household but she estimated it at about £1000 a year. She accepted however that if she had extra money and he needed it she would provide it to him.
[6] The pursuer also provided information about her employment. Prior to her husband’s death she had been involved in childcare. When her youngest child had gone to nursery at about the age of four she returned to part-time work but she felt that she had missed so much while off work she retrained as a child development officer working in a nursery. She obtained employment which she maintained regularly up to the death of her son. She had achieved promotion and she was assigned additional duties and responsibilities. She was encouraged to seek further promotion after further training. She had made enquiries about this prior to the crash. She was due to start further training in August of 2010.
[7] Subsequent to her son’s death she has had difficulty returning to fulltime work but appears to be making some considerable effort. There was little detail of this because parties had essentially agreed the amounts involved in past and future wage loss and any amounts which would be paid, subject to the decision as to whether the pursuer was a secondary victim.
[8] Unusually for the pursuer she had not seen her son for some days prior to 1 June 2010. She had been away from home for a short period. She had communicated with him on the Monday prior to the incident and had agreed that she would see him later at the gymnasium which they both attended in Scotstoun, Glasgow. On Tuesday 1st June she finished her work at approximately four o’clock and recalled visiting the post office in the Hyndland area of Glasgow. She returned home where she spoke with her daughter stating that she was proposing to attend the gymnasium. Her scheduled class was at approximately 6pm. She left her house shortly after 5pm and noted on her approach to the gymnasium that there was a traffic jam resulting in traffic being diverted at the roundabout near the sports centre onto Dumbarton Road. Eventually she found a parking place in a side street and walked towards the centre. As she was doing so she was aware of police activity and streets being cordoned off. As she was passing the scene of the crash she was able to see a very badly damaged vehicle against a tree. Her immediate thought was that someone must have died. Her concern was also that someone must be suffering as a result of this. Her initial reaction was one of relief that her own children could not be involved as her son did not drive and her daughter was at home. She felt that the crash looked “so bad” and the state of the vehicle “affected me”. The witness expressed empathy towards the family which must have been suffering from the consequences of what she believed was an accident at the time. On entering the gymnasium she was beginning to feel a sense of unwillingness to carry on with her class. She heard people talking about the crash and making comments such as, “this might stop people speeding on that road”. Dr McLennan, the psychiatrist who later gave evidence and whose evidence I shall return to, described the pursuer’s mood at this point as being “preoccupied by the accident”. It seems that the pursuer had asked staff to tannoy for her son because she did not see him around, as expected. The pursuer stated in her evidence that a friend had overheard that a 20 year old boy had been knocked down. The friend then said that it made one think of one’s own children. The pursuer started to think about her own children while at the same time attempting to push these thoughts out of her mind. She said however that she “felt the energy going out of me.” At some point she had started her exercise class but after the warm up had stopped for a drink of water. She noticed that her phone showed that there had been six missed calls. At that point she became scared. The calls were from her daughter Stephanie whom she phoned to discover that police had been at the house. The pursuer shouted to her friend that she thought that the victim of the “accident” was her son David. She went to the desk to ask them to check the computer to find out whether her son had signed in. He had not. Dr McLennan’s evidence was to the effect that it was at this point that the pursuer was almost hysterical, screaming and desperate to see her son. Her friend was trying to comfort her. It appears that a member of staff had left the gymnasium to speak to police outside after the pursuer had tried to seek out her son. The pursuer was aware of police officers entering the gymnasium. The pursuer used words to her friend such as “Ask if it’s David Young”. She was aware of the police approaching her and asking her name. She kept shouting “Is it David, is it David”. She was taken upstairs to an office. There she was asked if David had a tattoo and when she said he had, she was told that he was dead. At that point she remembers screaming and shouting words...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v MacVean
...the Lord Ordinary awarded damages in favour of the pursuer both in respect of loss of society and personal injury as a secondary victim ([2014] CSOH 133). The defender reclaimed. Cases referred to: Alcock and ors v Chief Constable, South Yorkshire Police sub nom Jones v WrightELR[1992] 1 AC......
-
James Currie And Margaret Currie Against Esure Services Limited
...Outer House awards in Gallagher v SC Cheadle Hulme [2014] CSOH 121 (£35,000 for children of the deceased in their 30s) and Young v MacVean 2014 SLT 934 (£80,000 for the mother of a 26 year old). If that were done, the range ought to be £65‒80,000. Respondents [13] The Lord Ordinary had appr......
-
Danielle Weddle Against Glasgow City Council
...1995 SC 364; ix. Wallace v Kennedy (1908) 16 SLT 485; x. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455; xi. Young v McVean 2014 SLT 934; 4 xii. “Nervous Shock and Negligent Conduct”, F.A.Trindade, LQR 1996, 112 (Jan) 22-27; and xiii. McEwan and Paton on Damages for Personal Inj......