Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This case, arising out of the Kirtlebridge accident on 2d October 1872, was tried before Lord Neaves and a jury on 21st March 1873. The jury returned a verdict for the pursuer, and awarded him £2000 damages. On Saturday, June 14, the defenders moved the Court to have the verdict set aside, on the ground of the damages being “excessive” in the sense of the statute. The Second Division granted a rule, and the case now came up for parties to show cause why the rule should not be made absolute.

For the defenders, it was argued that the damages awarded were “excessive” when viewed along with the circumstances. The pursuer had not received any visible bodily injury; the medical evidence only brought it up to a nervous shock. The scene in the station alone might have produced a severe shock on the system of a nervous person, even though not actually in the train. Surely this would not have grounded a claim against the Company for damages. The pursuer's injuries being of this nervous character, it would not be easy to say how great or small they were Certainly he did not make the least of them, and though at the jury trial he was unable to bear a journey from Stirling, yet within ten days thereafter he proceeded to Glasgow, whence he went to the Continent, where he now remains.

For the pursuer, it was argued that the damages given must be extravagant—“outrageous,” to use a term applied by the Judges in several such cases. Here is a man with an income of £700 to £800 a-year, an income which, by the books produced, was rapidly increasing. Yet further, the progress and success of the pursuer's business depended in great measure on his own personal skill and exertions. This was proved by the evidence alike of his own partner and of those persons who employed his firm. The firm, since this accident to Mr Reid, has failed to secure as large a share of its clients' business as formerly. The sum granted, £2000, is on the lowest scale less than three years' income, and on a higher one only that made in two and a-half years.

As to the extent of injury, the medical evidence, with one exception, is very much against the Company, and the doctor who first saw the pursuer, together with his family attendant, are both of opinion that the shock was, and still is, a very serious one. Since the accident he has been quite unable to attend to business.

Authorities— Landale v. Landale, 3 D. 818; Houlden v. Cooper, 20th Dec. 1871, 9 Scot. Law Rep. 169 (not elsewhere reported); Stewart v. Caledonian Railway Co., Feb. 4, 1870, 7 Scot. Law Rep. 277 (the only report bearing on this point).

At advising—