Compensation snub for taxi smash victimA COURT has ruled that a man struck by a taxi while walking on a country road will not receive any compensation.
Richard Little was struck by a taxi on Caplethill Road on April 12, 2008, while walking home from a night out with friends. Then 23-years-old, he attempted to seek damages for personal injuries against the driver of the taxi, however Lord Jones absolved the driver of any offence, prompting Mr Little to appeal the decision.
Mr Little had been walking home from Paisley towards Barrhead on the completely unlit country road between the two towns after a night out in Paisley.
At that point the road was still without any form of pavement, and he was hit by a taxi travelling towards Paisley.
And in a judgement last week, he was again refused compensation after his legal team attempted to argue that the decision made by Lord Jones was not in keeping with the evidence.
The facts of the case were replayed in a court judgement this week that showed Mr Little could not remember the accident and gave no evidence during the original case.
It was originally decided that there was not enough evidence to show that the taxi driver was negligent in his actions, however, lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Little said that Lord Ordinary’s decision was inconsistent with the original findings, arguing that the defendant failed to keep a proper look out and that he should have braked — rather than swerving to avoid Mr Little.
They also said it was inconsistent with facts concerning the speed of the taxi, the driver’s awareness of Mr Little and his lack of braking.
The pursuing team also challenged the Lord Ordinary on the facts, saying he had failed to take into account a number of them in his decision, such as evidence that showed that the defendant should have been able to see Mr Little on dipped beam and stopped in time.
However, Lords Paton, Bracadale and Drummond Young rejected all of the arguments submitted by the pursuing legal team, saying: “In the result therefore we have been unable to find an identifiable error on the part of the Lord Ordinary.
“Nor are we satisfied that the Lord Ordinary’s decision ‘cannot reasonably be explained or justified.”
They continued: “For the reasons given above, we refuse the reclaiming motion. We continue the question of expenses”.
It is not known what sum Mr Little was seeking in damages.
- See more at:
http://www.barrheadnews.com/news/roundu ... axi-smash-
Login
Register
FAQ
