BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Wallace v. West Calder Co-Operative Society (Ltd) [1888] ScotLR 25_458 (13 January 1888) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1888/25SLR0458.html Cite as: [1888] SLR 25_458, [1888] ScotLR 25_458 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 458↓
[
A widow brought an action of damages for the death of her husband, resulting from personal injuries caused by the defenders. He was a builder by trade, and his whole income from that and other sources amounted to £150. The widow was left unprovided for. The jury awarded her £900. On a motion for a new trial the Court held the award excessive, and reduced it to £500.
John Wallace died on 29th June 1887 from injuries received by his being thrown out of a car which collided with a bread van belonging to the West Calder Co-operative Society on 20th April previously. His widow subsequently brought an action of damages against the company, which was tried before Lord Lee and a jury in November 1887, when a verdict was returned for the pursuer—the damages being assessed at £900—being £800 as damages, and £100 as solatium.
The defenders afterwards obtained a rule on the ground of excessive damages.
It was proved at the trial that Wallace was a builder in West Calder, and that he also held the offices of inspector of poor and collector of poor-rates for Livingstone parish. His income was admitted to be £150 per annum from all sources. His widow, who was forty years of age, was left without means.
The pursuer in showing cause argued that the amount of damages must be clearly exorbitant before the Court would interfere— Landell v. Landell, March 6, 1841, 3 D. 819; Shields v. North British Railway Company, Nov. 24,. 1874, 2 R. 126; Young v. Glasgow Tramway Company, Nov. 29, 1882, 10 R. 242. There had been cases where the Court had reduced such damages— Johnston v. Dilke, June 16, 1875, 2 R. 236—either where they had been on the face of them unreasonable, or where no substantial injury had been sustained, but the present was not one of these. In a recent case the Court had refused to set aside a verdict where a father was awarded £400 for the death of his son, a lad of sixteen— M'Master v. Caledonian Railway Company, Nov. 27, 1885, 13 R. 252.
The defenders argued that the deceased had not been engaged in any prosperous and increasing business, particularly looking to the fact that £80 of his admitted income of £150 came from the public offices which he held. The £100 given as solatium was not objected to, but otherwise the amount given was practically double what it ought to have been.
At advising—
Page: 459↓
The Court pronounced this interlocutor —
“In respect that the pursuer consents that the amount of damages found by the verdict of the jury shall be reduced to £500, discharge the rule for a new trial, and find the defenders entitled to expenses in connection with the application for and discussion upon the rule,” &c.
By a subsequent interlocutor on the same day the Court applied the verdict, and decerned for £500; and found the pursuer entitled to expenses in so far as not already disposed of.
Counsel for the Pursuer— J. C. Thomson— Hay. Agents— W. & W. Saunders, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders— Lord-Adv. Macdonald— Rhind. Agent— Robert Menzies, S. S. C.
