ANDERSON AGAINST JOHN IMRIE AND ANTOINETTE IMRIE [2018] ScotCS CSIH_14 (15 March 2018)

ANDERSON AGAINST JOHN IMRIE AND ANTOINETTE IMRIE [2018] ScotCS CSIH_14 (15 March 2018)

The second defender, having assumed responsibility for the pursuer in a dangerous farm environment, failed to exercise reasonable care by allowing him to be unsupervised for several minutes, during which a foreseeable risk of injury materialised. She was negligent both at common law and under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. The Lord Ordinary's evaluation of the facts and application of the legal standard was not plainly or obviously wrong and should not be interfered with by the appellate court.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_14
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Craig Anderson; First Defender: John Imrie; Second Defender and Reclaimer: Antoinette Imrie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Child Supervision, Foreseeability
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Negligence Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Child Supervision +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Anderson

Pursuer and Respondent

John Imrie

First Defender

Antoinette Imrie

Second Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the second defender negligent in her supervision of the pursuer?
  2. 2 Was the second defender an occupier for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?
  3. 3 Did the accident arise from a danger due to the state of the premises under section 2(1) of the 1960 Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The second defender, having assumed responsibility for the pursuer in a dangerous farm environment, failed to exercise reasonable care by allowing him to be unsupervised for several minutes, during which a foreseeable risk of injury materialised. She was negligent both at common law and under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. The Lord Ordinary's evaluation of the facts and application of the legal standard was not plainly or obviously wrong and should not be interfered with by the appellate court.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision upheld.

Orders

  • Second defender (Antoinette Imrie) liable to make reparation to pursuer (Craig Anderson).
  • Second defender ordered to pay damages of £325,976, reflecting a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.