 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Brown v. Campbell [1924] ScotLR 605 (18 July 1924) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1924/61SLR0605.html Cite as: [1924] SLR 605, [1924] ScotLR 605 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 605↓
[Sheriff Court at Glasgow.
An action raised in the Sheriff Court concluding for £300 as damages for personal injury having been remitted to the Court of Session for jury trial under section 30 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, the Court remitted the case back to the Sheriff-Substitute as unsuitable for jury trial in respect that the averments did not disclose a claim which could reasonably be entitled to a verdict of more than £50.
The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, Section 30, which provides for the removal to the Court of session for jury trial of cases originating in the Sheriff Court where the claim is in amount or value above £50 contains this proviso—“provided, however, that the Court of Session shall if it thinks the case unsuitable for jury trial have power to remit the case back to the Sheriff.…”
John Brown, 50 M'Nair Street, Glasgow, with consent of his father, Pursuer, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against Adam Campbell, 51 Mill Street, Glasgow, defender, for payment of £300 as damages for personal injuries.
The pursuer averred, inter alia—“(Cond. 2) On or about 10th January 1924 the pursuer was in the employment of Messrs James Reid & Company, firewood merchants, 56 M'Nair Street, Shettleston, Glasgow, as a lorryman on a horse-drawn lorry. (Cond. 3) About 5 p.m. of that day the pursuer was driving his horse and lorry westwards along Shettleston Road, Shettleston, Glasgow. When near Culross Street, which is a side street off Shettleston Road, the pursuer's lorry was suddenly and without warning struck on the rear end by a heavy motor lorry, No. G.A. 7236, owned and at the time driven by the defender which was proceeding in the same direction as the horse and lorry driven by pursuer. (Cond. 4) As a result of the collision the pursuer was thrown from his lorry and rendered unconscious. He was at once medically attended to and was thereafter taken home. It was then found that his head was injured front and back, his face being swollen and bruised and cut. His body and legs were bruised, and he sustained a severe shock to his nervous system and slight concussion.”
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Blair) having allowed a proof the pursuer required the cause to be remitted to the Court of Session for jury trial in terms of section 30 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907.
When the case appeared in the Single Bills the defender moved that the case should be remitted back to the Sheriff as unsuitable for jury trial in respect it was clear from the averments that no reasonable jury could award the pursuer £50 of damages— Monaghan v. United Co-operative Baking Society, Limited, 1917 S.C. 12, 54 S.L.R. 211; Greer v. Corporation of Glasgow, 1915 S.C. 171, 52 S.L.R. 109.
Argued for pursuer—Defender had tendered £40 which amounted to an admission that the injuries were not trivial. Pursuer's averments if proved would justify an award of more than £50— Duffy v. Young, 7 F. 30, 42 S.L.R. 40; Sharpies v. Yuill & Company, 7 F. 657, 42 S.L.R. 538; Greer v. Corporation of Glasgow ( cit.), per Lord Skerrington at 174.
At advising—
It is in my opinion adding nothing new to Lord Dunedin's criterion, but, on the contrary, merely interpreting it and carrying it into effect, to say that if a pursuer unreasonably refrains from giving information in his pleadings in regard to the nature and extent of his injuries so as to leave it doubtful whether a verdict for more than £50 would or would not be legitimate, his claim should be regarded as one which so far as its amount is concerned is of a trifling character and not suitable for jury trial. Thus in the present case every word in condescendence 4 might be deponed to as true by the most eminent physician and surgeon in Glasgow who, I shall suppose, happened to be an eye-witness of the accident and immediately attended to the pursuer. He might explain, however, that the visible injuries to the head and legs were triflingand would leave no mark, but that the shock was a serious one and accompanied by slight concussion as averred. He might then add that for twenty-four hours it remained doubtful whether the effects of the accident would be serious or trifling,
Page: 606↓
The Court remitted the cause back to the Sheriff-Substitute.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Garson. Agent— W. A. Farquharson, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— Gilchrist. Agents— Manson & Turner Macfarlane, W.S.