Miller v Greater Glasgow NHS Board [2010] ScotCS CSIH_40 (14 May 2010)

Miller v Greater Glasgow NHS Board [2010] ScotCS CSIH_40 (14 May 2010)

The pleadings, though inelegant, disclosed a relevant case in both common law negligence and under the 1999 Regulations against the hospital authority. The case of vicarious liability against staff was not one of professional negligence and was wrongly excluded. The respondent's averments on causation were sufficient to entitle her to proof. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_40
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Elizabeth Miller; Defenders and Reclaimers: Greater Glasgow NHS Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Hospital Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999, Infection Control, Professional Negligence, Statutory Duties of Health Authorities
Tort/delict Health Law Statutory Interpretation Hospital Negligence Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Causation Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Miller

Pursuer and Respondent

Greater Glasgow NHS Board

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/negligence) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case in common law negligence against the hospital authority for MRSA infection
  2. 2 Whether a relevant case of vicarious liability against hospital staff was pled
  3. 3 Whether the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 applied to the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings, though inelegant, disclosed a relevant case in both common law negligence and under the 1999 Regulations against the hospital authority. The case of vicarious liability against staff was not one of professional negligence and was wrongly excluded. The respondent's averments on causation were sufficient to entitle her to proof. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on all remaining averments, including those previously excluded by the Lord Ordinary except those relating to res ipsa loquitur.
  • The case of vicarious liability against staff is restored for proof.