Groundworker injured in road accident after driver failed to respond to ambulance awarded £6,000 in damages

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC EDIN 20
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff M Peter Anderson

Pursuer Stephen Lyons raised the claim against QBE UK Ltd, the insurers of the van, after sustaining injuries to his neck, back, and shoulders during the collision. His case was that the defenders’ insured driver had made a material contribution to the collision due to his negligence. The driver of the other car was not involved in the action but raised a separate action against the defenders in the same court.

The case was heard by Sheriff Peter Anderson in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court. The pursuer was represented by Ronald Conway, solicitor advocate, and the defenders by Stephen Kirk, solicitor.

Did not make accommodations

On 22 January 2021, the pursuer was a passenger in a Ford Transit van being driven by the defenders’ insured, Mr Lorenzo Tortolano, who was employed along with the pursuer and two other passengers by Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd. As Mr Tortolano drove along the A73 heading towards Airdrie, an ambulance with its blue lights on approached a slip road junction merging onto the A73, shortly before the end of the dual carriageway. Ahead of the van in the other lane was a Vauxhall Astra being driven by Lauren Sands, an off-duty police officer.

When the Astra was approximately 50 metres from the slip road, Ms Sands changed lanes into the path of Mr Tortolano’s van without signalling. At a place approximately level with the Give Way sign shortly before the beginning of the slip road junction, the front of the van collided with the Vauxhall, causing injury to the pursuer. As a consequence of his injuries, which took nine months to fully heal, the pursuer was off work for a week and was unable to perform tasks other than light duties for a further two weeks after that.

It was submitted for the pursuer that the driving of Mr Tortolano amounted to a negligent and material contribution to the accident. Mr Tortolano did not make any accommodations for the presence of the ambulance nor for the possibility that Ms Sands would change lanes, which was the only way she could give priority to the ambulance. It was hard and settled law that damages in full could be recovered in the circumstances.

For the defenders it was submitted that there was no positive requirement for either of the drivers on the dual carriageway to give way to the ambulance. Mr Tortolano had decided to deal with its presence by driving past the junction with the intention of later pulling over. Even if he had slowed down, there was nothing to say that the accident could have been avoided given the late movement of the Astra into his path.

Duty to alter speed

In his decision, Sheriff Anderson said of causation: “I find that the accident was caused at least in part by the speed of Mr Tortolano. In his evidence to me he said very frankly that he did not reduce speed at all. He did not describe lifting his foot off the accelerator or covering the brake in anticipation of any event that might result from the presence of the ambulance. I find that to be a breach of the duty of reasonable care.”

He continued: “The late move to the right towards the outside lane by the Astra driver was folly, but it was not out with reasonable care to anticipate that it might happen and to slow down against that possibility. I find that it was his duty to alter his speed so that he stayed behind the Astra, which was travelling at an ordinary legitimate speed of 60 mph or more just in case the presence of the ambulance created a change in traffic conditions which might provoke an otherwise unlikely response from the Astra. This is different from the situation if there had been some other non-emergency vehicle approaching the slip road end.”

Considering whether this amounted to a material contribution, Sheriff Anderson said: “Mr Tortolano could and should have put the Ford Transit in a position which was behind the Astra and should not have moved from that until he knew that the emergency vehicle had become established in its road use, or both the Astra and the Ford Transit had safely passed the slip road. Although finally I do not require the special knowledge of Mr Tortolano about the junction to set up the basis of my decision, there is an added requirement for caution on his part because he said in evidence that he knew the junction to be dangerous.”

He concluded on quantum in respect of solatium: “The pursuer indicated that he attributed any significant continuing difficulty to his back and that he could cope with any difficulty or pain in his shoulder. There is always difficulty in trying to add together two categories of injury because the overlap is obvious. The injuries I have outlined and as set out in the Pursuer’s evidence together with that of Mr Anderson, the Consultant, lead me to the view that the appropriate figure is £4,300.”

After adding interest and loss of wages for the period the pursuer was off work, the sheriff awarded a total of £6,008.91 to the pursuer.