Bark v Scott 1954 SC 72
Citation: Bark v Scott 1954 SC 72
Rule of thumb: If you have been drinking alcohol, although below the drink drive limit, and are in a collision, is the fact you were drinking relevant evidence? Yes, even if you were not above the drink drive limit this is still relevant evidence in a civil claim for negligent driving.
Judgment:
The basic facts were that a defender was known to have consumed alcohol and driven, although not above the limit for criminal conviction, and hit a cyclist. The driver argued that the driving was not negligent & in breach of any road traffic laws, but the fact the driver had been drinking was deemed to be relevant evidence, ‘and I take it, therefore, that the question is one of degree in each case, the determining factor being whether the matters averred are, in a reasonable sense, pertinent and relevant and whether they have a reasonably direct bearing on the subject under investigation, or whether on the other hand they fall to be rejected as being too indirect or too remote..’ Lord Cooper at 76
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.