Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_49 (10 March 2011)

Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_49 (10 March 2011)

The court held that the pursuer's averments regarding the duty of care owed by the Scottish Ambulance Service during the period between the 999 call and ambulance arrival are not irrelevant. The existence of a duty of care in such circumstances cannot be excluded without inquiry into the facts, given the statutory context, operational procedures, and the actions of the EMDC staff. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_49
Parties
Pursuer: Margaret Aitken; First Defender: Scottish Ambulance Service; Second Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments
Outcome
Motion to exclude averments of fault refused; action to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Duties, Emergency Services Liability
Tort Medical Negligence Public Law Duty of Care Negligence Vicarious Liability Statutory Duties Emergency Services Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Aitken

Pursuer

Scottish Ambulance Service

First Defender

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Averments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ambulance Service owed a duty of care to Nikki Williamson prior to arrival of ambulance
  2. 2 Whether averments of fault regarding delay in dispatching ambulance are relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer's averments regarding the duty of care owed by the Scottish Ambulance Service during the period between the 999 call and ambulance arrival are not irrelevant. The existence of a duty of care in such circumstances cannot be excluded without inquiry into the facts, given the statutory context, operational procedures, and the actions of the EMDC staff. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Motion to exclude averments of fault refused; action to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Action proceeds to proof before answer on written pleadings as they stand.
  • First defenders' plea to relevancy left standing.