Phillips v First Glasgow [2008] Glasgow Sheriff
Court
In Phillips v First Glasgow, 2 bus passengers were
injured when the driver braked suddenly after a dog ran out from
the left hand side of the road, straight across in front of the bus
and only a short distance ahead of it. The bus was travelling at no
more than 15 to 20mph. The road was busy with traffic and there
were vehicles parked all along both sides of the road.
The bus driver saw the dog run out in front of him and thought
the bus might hit it. However he was also aware that any sudden
braking created a risk that passengers, particularly any who might
be standing, might be thrown about and injured. The driver had only
a moment to decide whether and how to react. Acting instinctively,
he did brake the bus, but not as swiftly as in an emergency
stop.
Despite the best efforts of the driver, both passengers were
thrown off their feet. The dog, however, remained unscathed.
The pursuers relied on older tram cases, in particular
Sutherland v Glasgow Corporation, a decision from 1948.
There it was held that the onus was on the defenders to prove that
their driver had acted reasonably in dealing with the emergency
caused by a dog which ran out in front of the tram, having in view
the probable effect of a sudden stop.
The pursuers argued that there was a breach of duty by the
driver and that his braking was unjustified. There was no proof
that there had been a dog at all, and anyway braking would not have
prevented a collision. They also argued that the driver acted
instinctively and without giving the matter full consideration: he
ought to have known that the risks to his passengers were much more
significant than the risks to the dog.
The defenders referred to an English Court of Appeal authority
from 1950, Parkinson v Liverpool Corporation. Whereas in
Scotland there is a presumption that sudden braking is negligent
and the onus is on the driver to provide a reason to displace the
presumption, in contrast the approach of the English court is that
sudden braking is not necessarily negligent if a satisfactory
explanation is given.
In the present case, the sheriff found that the defenders were
not liable. He held that "the duties properly imposed upon him are
to take reasonable care for the safety of his passengers and to act
with due consideration for other road users. He did not have a duty
never to brake suddenly. In the event of a sudden emergency
presenting itself, he had a duty to take reasonable care to take
into consideration the safety of his passengers when deciding how
to react."
Not only is this judgement useful in the context of modern-day
transport, it may also provide a degree of reassurance for the
stray animal that chooses not to pay attention to the Green Cross
Code!
Contributed by Vikki Melville