Shields v Crossroads (Orkney) [2013] ScotCS CSOH_144 (23 August 2013)

Shields v Crossroads (Orkney) [2013] ScotCS CSOH_144 (23 August 2013)

The court held that it would not be fair, just, or reasonable to impose a novel duty of care on a social worker or his employer to refrain from a consensual sexual relationship with a competent adult service user, absent statutory or established common law authority. The relationship was consensual, the pursuer was not legally incapacitated, and the alleged harm flowed from the breakdown of the relationship, not from actionable negligence or intentional wrongdoing. The employer was not vicariously liable as the conduct was outside the scope of employment.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_144
Parties
Pursuer: Helen Shields; Defenders: Crossroads (Orkney)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/negligence) / Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Professional Misconduct, Sexual Relationships and Abuse of Trust, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Harm
Tort/delict Employment Law Mental Health Law Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Professional Misconduct Sexual Relationships and Abuse of Trust 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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Shields

Pursuer

Crossroads (Orkney)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/negligence) / Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a social worker and his employer owe a common law duty of care to a mentally vulnerable adult service user to refrain from entering into a consensual sexual relationship with her.
  2. 2 Whether the employer is vicariously liable for the employee's consensual sexual relationship with a service user.
  3. 3 Whether the facts support a claim for intentional infliction of harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it would not be fair, just, or reasonable to impose a novel duty of care on a social worker or his employer to refrain from a consensual sexual relationship with a competent adult service user, absent statutory or established common law authority. The relationship was consensual, the pursuer was not legally incapacitated, and the alleged harm flowed from the breakdown of the relationship, not from actionable negligence or intentional wrongdoing. The employer was not vicariously liable as the conduct was outside the scope of employment.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed in its entirety
  • All questions of expenses reserved