CAROLYN ALMOND-ROOTS AGAINST MUFTAH SALEM ELJAMEL AND ANOTHER [2021] ScotCS CSOH_130 (21 December 2021)

CAROLYN ALMOND-ROOTS AGAINST MUFTAH SALEM ELJAMEL AND ANOTHER [2021] ScotCS CSOH_130 (21 December 2021)

The court found that the moral blameworthiness and causative potency of the first defender's negligence in performing the surgery and failing to arrange emergency follow-up vastly outweighed the second defenders' omission. The second defenders' negligence was not causative of the neurological injury suffered by the pursuer. The first defender is 100% liable for the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_130
Parties
Pursuer: Carolyn Almond-Roots; First Defender: Muftah Salem Eljamel; Second Defenders: NHS Tayside
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Damages for Personal Injuries (clinical Negligence) / Apportionment of Damages Following Decree
Outcome
First defender found 100% liable for the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage; second defenders found 0% liable.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Causation, Joint and Several Liability, Clinical Negligence, Duty of Care
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Delict Tort Apportionment of Liability Causation Joint and Several Liability Clinical Negligence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Almond-Roots

Pursuer

Muftah Salem Eljamel

First Defender

NHS Tayside

Second Defenders

Procedural Posture

Damages for Personal Injuries (clinical Negligence) / Apportionment of Damages Following Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the just apportionment of damages between two negligent medical defendants under section 3(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940?
  2. 2 Did the admitted negligence of NHS Tayside contribute to the pursuer's ultimate neurological injury?
  3. 3 Should the first defender bear full responsibility for the pursuer's loss, injury and damage?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the moral blameworthiness and causative potency of the first defender's negligence in performing the surgery and failing to arrange emergency follow-up vastly outweighed the second defenders' omission. The second defenders' negligence was not causative of the neurological injury suffered by the pursuer. The first defender is 100% liable for the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage.

Court Disposition

First defender found 100% liable for the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage; second defenders found 0% liable.

Orders

  • Decree in terms of joint minute for payment to pursuer of £2,810,118 net of any liability under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, with interest at 8% per annum from date of decree until payment.
  • Apportionment of damages: first defender 100%, second defenders 0%.