Mr Cameron was struck by a bakery van as he lay intoxicated in the middle of Wellmeadow Street, Paisley in the early hours of the morning on 23rd April 2016. As a result of the collision, he suffered catastrophic, life-changing injuries.
The injured pedestrian raised an action against the driver of the bakery van who had struck him.
Initially, the Court refused to award him any compensation following hearing evidence from the driver and also a psychologist who specialised in visual perception and situational awareness. The Judge concluded that the driver’s view had been obstructed, or at least impeded, by a taxi and therefore he would not have had a clear view of the piece of road where Mr Cameron had been lying.
APPEAL
Mr Cameron appealed the decision.
On review of the driver’s evidence, the appeal Judge found that the initial decision not to award compensation could not be reasonably justified.
Coming across an intoxicated person, whether vertical or horizontal, in the middle of an urban street was something which could and did happen. Even if it was unexpected and unanticipated, he believed it to be reasonably foreseeable.
PEDESTRIAN 65% TO BLAME DRIVER 35% TO BLAME
The driver had a duty to take reasonable care for other persons using the highway, even persons who might be lying on it in a drunken state. Despite lying intoxicated in the middle of the road, Mr Cameron was able to recover 35% of the compensation he was entitled to.
Related Articles
MW v Wilkinson – Driver not liable in child pedestrian accident
A tragic road traffic accident involving a 5-year-old boy resulted in serious injuries, but the court found the driver was not liable. This case highlights when drivers may – and
Atkinson v Kennedy – Driver not liable in child pedestrian case
Atkinson v Kennedy demonstrates that even in serious child pedestrian accidents, liability is not automatic. The Court held the collision was unavoidable despite the driver exceeding the speed limit.
Gadsby v Hayes | Child pedestrian toucan crossing case
A High Court case examining whether a driver should reduce speed to 10 mph at a toucan crossing. Despite serious injuries to a child pedestrian, the court found no negligence.
Is it worth 5 minutes of your time?
A quick phone call allows us to ask you a few questions about what happened to you and determine whether we can help.
This form collects your name and phone number so that we can contact you. Check out our Privacy Policy for more detail on how we store, process and protect your submitted data. If you choose not to consent, please use an alternative contact method shown on our Contact page.