GR AGAINST (FIRST)& GREATER GLASGOW AND CLYDE HEALTH BOARD AND (SECOND)& JOHNSON AND JOHNSON MEDICAL LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_109 (27 November 2018)

GR AGAINST (FIRST)& GREATER GLASGOW AND CLYDE HEALTH BOARD AND (SECOND)& JOHNSON AND JOHNSON MEDICAL LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_109 (27 November 2018)

The pursuer has pled a relevant case at common law against the second defenders for alleged negligence in the design, manufacture, marketing, and supply of pelvic mesh products. The pleadings, though not optimal, are sufficient to allow proof before answer. The pursuer has set out the alleged defects, failures in testing and warnings, and injuries suffered. The second defenders' objections on specification and relevancy are rejected, except for certain conceded averments, which are deleted.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_109
Parties
Pursuer: GR; First Defender: Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board; Second Defender: Johnson and Johnson Medical Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Second defenders' second plea in law repelled; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Common Law Negligence, Duty of Care, Defective Medical Devices, Manufacturer Liability, Testing and Warnings, Causation
Tort Product Liability Medical Law Common Law Negligence Duty of Care Defective Medical Devices Manufacturer Liability Testing and Warnings +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GR

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board

First Defender

Johnson and Johnson Medical Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the pursuer pled a relevant case at common law against the manufacturer for alleged negligence in design, manufacture, marketing, and supply of pelvic mesh products?
  2. 2 Is the specification of alleged defects, testing, warnings, and causation sufficient to allow proof before answer?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer has pled a relevant case at common law against the second defenders for alleged negligence in the design, manufacture, marketing, and supply of pelvic mesh products. The pleadings, though not optimal, are sufficient to allow proof before answer. The pursuer has set out the alleged defects, failures in testing and warnings, and injuries suffered. The second defenders' objections on specification and relevancy are rejected, except for certain conceded averments, which are deleted.

Court Disposition

Second defenders' second plea in law repelled; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Delete conceded averments regarding instructions and fake report.
  • Reserve question of expenses.