RENNIE v MORRISON & Anor [2014] ScotCS CSOH_123 (08 August 2014)

RENNIE v MORRISON & Anor [2014] ScotCS CSOH_123 (08 August 2014)

Neither contributory negligence nor provocation is relevant on the pleadings. There is no averment that Mr Rennie's actions caused or contributed to his injury, nor that the first defender was provoked by any act of Mr Rennie. The sole cause of injury was the first defender's deliberate act. The defences are bound to fail.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_123
Parties
Pursuer: Frances McLaughlin, as guardian of John Rennie; First Defender: Pauline Morrison; Second Defender: Esure Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Damages Action / Motion to Allow Proof Restricted to Quantum; Challenge to Relevancy of Contributory Negligence and Provocation Defences
Outcome
Action appointed to proof restricted to quantum; defences of contributory negligence and provocation held irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Provocation, Damages, Assault, Causation
Delict Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Provocation Damages Assault Causation

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frances McLaughlin, as guardian of John Rennie

Pursuer

Pauline Morrison

First Defender

Esure Services Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Damages Action / Motion to Allow Proof Restricted to Quantum; Challenge to Relevancy of Contributory Negligence and Provocation Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defences of contributory negligence and provocation are relevant and specified in law and fact; whether the pleadings justify a reduction in damages for contributory negligence or provocation.

Ratio Decidendi

Neither contributory negligence nor provocation is relevant on the pleadings. There is no averment that Mr Rennie's actions caused or contributed to his injury, nor that the first defender was provoked by any act of Mr Rennie. The sole cause of injury was the first defender's deliberate act. The defences are bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Action appointed to proof restricted to quantum; defences of contributory negligence and provocation held irrelevant.

Orders

  • Proof allowed restricted to quantum of damages.
  • All questions of expenses reserved.