Mark Andrew Card against Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 81 (20 October 2025)

Mark Andrew Card against Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 81 (20 October 2025)

The defender breached the duty of care owed to the pursuer by failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically through the negligent recording and updating of critical information by control room staff, which led to the failure to deploy AFOs and resulted in the pursuer's injury. The Chief Constable is vicariously liable for these failures. However, the pursuer was contributorily negligent by not following his training and failing to take reasonable precautions, warranting a 40% reduction in damages.

Citation
[2025] SCEDIN 81
Parties
Pursuer: Mark Andrew Card; Defender: Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (reparation) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defender found liable to make reparation to pursuer, subject to 40% deduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Safe System of Work, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Police Law Employer's Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Negligence Safe System of Work Contributory Negligence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Andrew Card

Pursuer

Chief Constable, Police Service of Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (reparation) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Constable owed and breached a duty of care to the pursuer as an employee
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Constable is vicariously liable for the negligent acts/omissions of police officers and control room staff
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The defender breached the duty of care owed to the pursuer by failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically through the negligent recording and updating of critical information by control room staff, which led to the failure to deploy AFOs and resulted in the pursuer's injury. The Chief Constable is vicariously liable for these failures. However, the pursuer was contributorily negligent by not following his training and failing to take reasonable precautions, warranting a 40% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Defender found liable to make reparation to pursuer, subject to 40% deduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £210,000 inclusive of interest to 12 June 2025, net of any liability under Section 6 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, with interest at 8% per annum thereafter until payment.