Mr Cameron was struck by a bakery van as he lay intoxicated in the middle of Wellmeadow Street, Paisley in the early hours of the morning on 23rd April 2016. As a result of the collision, he suffered catastrophic, life-changing injuries.
The injured pedestrian raised an action against the driver of the bakery van who had struck him.
Initially, the Court refused to award him any compensation following hearing evidence from the driver and also a psychologist who specialised in visual perception and situational awareness. The Judge concluded that the driver’s view had been obstructed, or at least impeded, by a taxi and therefore he would not have had a clear view of the piece of road where Mr Cameron had been lying.
Mr Cameron appealed the decision.
On review of the driver’s evidence, the appeal Judge found that the initial decision not to award compensation could not be reasonably justified.
Coming across an intoxicated person, whether vertical or horizontal, in the middle of an urban street was something which could and did happen. Even if it was unexpected and unanticipated, he believed it to be reasonably foreseeable.
PEDESTRIAN 65% TO BLAME DRIVER 35% TO BLAME
The driver had a duty to take reasonable care for other persons using the highway, even persons who might be lying on it in a drunken state. Despite lying intoxicated in the middle of the road, Mr Cameron was able to recover 35% of the compensation he was entitled to.