Apportionment of Liability in Multi-defendant Road Traffic Fatality Cases: Insights from Fiona Susan Macphie v Liberty Insurance Ltd [2021] CSOH 15

Introduction

The case of Fiona Susan Macphie or Widowson and Others against (First) Liberty Insurance Ltd, (Second) NHS Grampian, and (Third) NHS Highland ([2021] CSOH 15) presents a nuanced examination of liability apportionment in the context of a fatal road traffic accident compounded by subsequent medical failures. The Scottish Court of Session navigated the complexities arising from multiple defendants, each admitting partial liability: Liberty Insurance as the motor insurer, NHS Grampian, and NHS Highland as health boards responsible for post-accident medical care. This commentary delves into the court's reasoning, the interplay of precedents, and the broader implications for Scottish tort law.

Summary of the Judgment

The pursuers, comprising the widow and family members of John Timothy Place Widdowson, initiated proceedings against three defendants following a fatal road traffic accident on January 1, 2016. Mr. Widdowson was seriously injured and later succumbed to his injuries, while Mr. Gordon, the driver of the other vehicle, died at the scene. All three defendants conceded liability to some extent, leading to a summary decree against them on October 24, 2020, with agreed damages totaling £741,361.

The core issue revolved around the apportionment of liability among the defendants. The court was tasked with determining the proportionate responsibility each party bore for Mr. Widdowson's death. The motor insurer was accused of the initial negligent act—Mr. Gordon's excessive speed causing the accident—while NHS Grampian and NHS Highland were culpable for their omissions in providing adequate medical care post-accident.

After deliberation, the court apportioned 70% of the damages to the first defendants (Liberty Insurance) and 15% each to the second and third defendants (NHS Grampian and NHS Highland). This decision underscored the primary culpability of the negligent driver while recognizing the contributory role of medical oversights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established case law to guide the apportionment of liability. Key among these was Downs v Chappell and Stephenson Smart & Co [1997] 1 WLR 426, where the Court of Appeal emphasized that liability apportionment must consider both the degree of fault and its causative relevance. Additionally, the case drew upon Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5 for insights into contributory negligence, although noting distinctions in applying it to apportionment between multiple defendants.

Other relevant cases included Webb v Barclays Bank Plc 2001 EWCA (Civ) 1141, illustrating how medical negligence interacts with original tortious acts, and Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, reinforcing the established approach to contributory negligence in road traffic accidents. These precedents collectively informed the court's methodology in balancing the contributions of each defendant's negligence.

Legal Reasoning

The court adopted a two-pronged approach focusing on (i) relative blameworthiness and (ii) causative potency of each defendant's actions. The negligent driving by Mr. Gordon was deemed the primary cause of the accident, as it directly initiated the chain of events leading to Mr. Widdowson's death. The medical professionals' failures, while contributory, were categorized as omissions rather than the root cause.

The distinction between acts and omissions played a pivotal role. The motor insurer's responsibility stemmed from a positive negligent act—exceeding safe speeds—while the NHS entities' liabilities were based on failures to act adequately post-accident. The court assessed that while these omissions significantly contributed to the fatal outcome, they did not eclipse the initial act's culpability.

Expert testimonies, particularly from medical professionals, were scrutinized to evaluate whether the omissions truly diverted or exacerbated the original negligence's effects. Despite acknowledging that earlier medical interventions could have altered the prognosis, the court maintained that the fundamental cause lay with the negligent driver.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that while multiple parties may bear responsibility in complex cases, the primary offender—the one whose actions initiated the harm—typically bears the majority of liability. It delineates the boundaries between contributory negligence and primary fault, especially in scenarios where subsequent failures do not independently cause the injury but exacerbate existing harm.

For future cases, this ruling offers clarity on how Scottish courts may approach situations involving both initial tortious acts and subsequent medical negligence. It underscores the necessity for medical professionals to meet established standards to avoid their omissions becoming a significant factor in liability apportionment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The judgment in Fiona Susan Macphie v Liberty Insurance Ltd et al [2021] CSOH 15 serves as a significant precedent in Scottish tort law, particularly concerning the apportionment of liability in complex multi-defendant cases. By affirming that the primary negligent act—the reckless driving causing the accident—should bear the bulk of liability, while acknowledging the contributory role of subsequent medical omissions, the court delineates a clear framework for future litigations.

This decision underscores the importance of establishing the factual basis for each defendant's contribution to the harm and emphasizes that primary causation holds substantial weight in liability determinations. Medical professionals are reminded of the critical nature of adhering to established protocols to mitigate their liabilities. Overall, the judgment reinforces the balance between recognizing initial tortious acts and appropriately attributing responsibility for subsequent failures that exacerbate the resultant harm.