McKeown (AP) v Lord Advocate [2001] ScotCS 16 (22 January 2001)

McKeown (AP) v Lord Advocate [2001] ScotCS 16 (22 January 2001)

The pursuer failed to establish, on the evidence, that there was a breach of duty by the Scottish Prison Service or its staff, either directly or vicariously. The incident in the dining hall was not shown to be sufficiently serious or threatening to require special measures, and no fair notice of a vicarious liability case was given. Furthermore, the identity of the attacker was not established on the balance of probabilities, and causation was not proved. Accordingly, the defender was entitled to absolvitor.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 16
Parties
Pursuer: Harold Stephen McKeown (AP); Defender: The Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (personal Injury) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Action dismissed; absolvitor granted to defender.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Prisoner Safety, Personal Injury
Tort Law Prison Law Negligence Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Prisoner Safety Personal Injury

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Stephen McKeown (AP)

Pursuer

The Lord Advocate

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (personal Injury) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Prison Service owed and breached a duty of care to the pursuer by failing to prevent an assault by a fellow prisoner
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer established negligence (direct or vicarious) on the part of the defender
  3. 3 Whether the identity of the attacker was established on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish, on the evidence, that there was a breach of duty by the Scottish Prison Service or its staff, either directly or vicariously. The incident in the dining hall was not shown to be sufficiently serious or threatening to require special measures, and no fair notice of a vicarious liability case was given. Furthermore, the identity of the attacker was not established on the balance of probabilities, and causation was not proved. Accordingly, the defender was entitled to absolvitor.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; absolvitor granted to defender.

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's pleas-in-law
  • Sustain defender's first three pleas-in-law