Phillips and Glasgow v First Glasgow (No. 1) Ltd ? Glasgow Sheriff Court, 1 March 2008

The Pursuers sustained injuries when the driver of the bus on which they had been travelling braked suddenly. They raised an action for damages against the bus driver's employers. Quantum was agreed but liability was disputed. At proof, the driver's evidence was that a dog had run in front of the bus. This was confirmed by an independent witness. The driver stated that he had been aware that, if he braked suddenly, he would create a risk that passengers might be injured. He had also been concerned that a child might run out after the dog. He had braked, but not fully. The Pursuers argued that it had been established that there had been severe braking, which had caused injury, and on that basis the driver had been in breach of his duty of care. The onus was then on the Defenders to prove that the driver had acted reasonably. The Defenders accepted that a prima facie case of negligence had been made out, but submitted that they had discharged the burden on them by explaining the reason for the braking, which could be described as reasonable in the circumstances. The Sheriff suggested that the approach of the Scottish Courts might be said to be based on a presumption that sudden braking is prima facie negligent and that the driver must provide a reason and displace that presumption. In this case, the Defenders had discharged the onus on them. There was no basis on which the driver's evidence could not be accepted as truthful and essentially reliable. He had thought about his passengers and their safety when deciding how to react. His evidence demonstrated that he had in mind his various and competing duties when deciding to brake and that he had not been negligent. The duties imposed on the driver were 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. If an emergency arose, he had a duty to take reasonable care to take into consideration the safety of his passengers when deciding how to react. He had discharged those duties and had not been negligent. On that basis the Defenders were not liable and Decree of Absolvitur was granted.