Raymond Munro v. William Sturrock trading as Scotmaps [2010] CSOH 116

Proof:- In this action the pursuer, a successful rally driver, sought damages from the defenders, a provider of maps via DVDs used to assist navigators in a rally, following a crash in which the pursuer's car and he was psychiatrically injured. In this action the standard of negligence which fell to be applied was the ordinary standard or the professional negligence standard as set out in Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200. On 21 August 2004, the pursuer competed in a rally on Speyside. He was driving a Subaru Impreza car along with his co-driver whose function it was to navigate the route for him by reading aloud the instructions on where to go from the route notes which had been provided by the defender. It was the pursuer's contention that he approached a bend at an appropriate speed and in a line in terms of the notes, namely the angle of the bend was denoted as 40°. However, the pursuer saw the bend was much more acutely angled than 40° and lost control of his vehicle. Further, had the notes in relation to the angle of the bend been more accurate he would have approached it at a slower speed and would have taken a different line. In the set of route notes prepared for the same stage in 2001 the bend was classified as 7L and had it been classified as 7L in the 2004 route notes the accident would not have occurred. It was the defenders contention that the notes were not scientifically or mathematically accurate and they simply provided the defender's subjective assessment of the course. At proof the issue was restricted to the issue of liability. The court considered an objection made on behalf of the defenders in which the admissibility of the expert evidence of the pursuer's witnesses in relation to the angle of the bend was challenged on the basis that none of the witnesses met the criteria for a skilled witness. Thereafter, the court considered the evidence led on behalf of both parties. In particular, the court considered the evidence led on behalf of the defenders from a surveyor who measured the bend at 30° in a mathematically accurate topographical survey. That calculation was unchallenged. In the event then that the court made a finding that the bend had an angle of 30° on 21 August 2004 the court considered whether guidance issued by the defenders to the effect that the bend had an angle of 40° was such as to render the defenders liable to the pursuers for acting on the information provided or whether such a difference was within the range of acceptability.