Rorrison v West Lothian College & Anor [1999] ScotCS 177 (21 July 1999)

Rorrison v West Lothian College & Anor [1999] ScotCS 177 (21 July 1999)

The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose any recognised psychiatric illness, nor did they give fair notice of an intention to prove such. Mere references to psychological distress, anxiety, or a 'nervous breakdown' without specification of a recognised psychiatric disorder are insufficient for recovery in negligence. There were also no relevant averments to support the existence of a duty of care to protect against psychiatric injury in the circumstances. Accordingly, the action must be dismissed.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 177
Parties
Pursuer: Angela Rorrison; First Defender: West Lothian College; Second Defender: Lothian Regional Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/negligence) / Debate on Procedure Roll (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Statutory Transfer of Liabilities
Employment Law Delict (tort) Personal Injury Employer's Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Vicarious Liability Negligence Statutory Transfer of Liabilities

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Rorrison

Pursuer

West Lothian College

First Defender

Lothian Regional Council

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/negligence) / Debate on Procedure Roll (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case of psychiatric injury for recovery in negligence
  2. 2 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to protect against psychiatric injury in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether statutory transfer provisions allow for joint and several liability between the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose any recognised psychiatric illness, nor did they give fair notice of an intention to prove such. Mere references to psychological distress, anxiety, or a 'nervous breakdown' without specification of a recognised psychiatric disorder are insufficient for recovery in negligence. There were also no relevant averments to support the existence of a duty of care to protect against psychiatric injury in the circumstances. Accordingly, the action must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain the first and seventh pleas-in-law for the first defenders
  • Sustain the first plea-in-law for the second defenders