Reitze & Ors v Strathclyde Regional Council [1999] ScotCS 104 (4 May 1999)

Reitze & Ors v Strathclyde Regional Council [1999] ScotCS 104 (4 May 1999)

The pleadings, if established in evidence, may be sufficient to show that the defenders assumed responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of persons to whom they supplied equipment, and that they may be vicariously liable for Boyle's alleged negligence. The case is not bound to fail on relevancy and should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 104
Parties
First Pursuer and Respondent: David Reitze; Second Pursuer and Respondent: Hellen Stephenson or MacDonald or Reitze; Third Pursuer and Respondent: Kenneth MacDonald (A. P.); Defenders and Appellants: Strathclyde Regional Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy, Post Sheriff Court Proof Before Answer Order
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; case remitted for proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Assumption of Responsibility, Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Negligence Personal Injury Vicarious Liability Assumption of Responsibility Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Relevancy of Pleadings

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Reitze

First Pursuer and Respondent

Hellen Stephenson or MacDonald or Reitze

Second Pursuer and Respondent

Kenneth MacDonald (A. P.)

Third Pursuer and Respondent

Strathclyde Regional Council

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal on Relevancy, Post Sheriff Court Proof Before Answer Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case of assumption of responsibility and duty of care by the defenders for the safety of persons supplied with equipment for white water rafting
  2. 2 Whether the defenders can be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of their employee Boyle
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are sufficient to justify proof before answer

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings, if established in evidence, may be sufficient to show that the defenders assumed responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of persons to whom they supplied equipment, and that they may be vicariously liable for Boyle's alleged negligence. The case is not bound to fail on relevancy and should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; case remitted for proof before answer.

Orders

  • Refuse the appeal
  • Adhere to the sheriff's interlocutor dated 28 November 1997