Smith v. Goldthorpe & Ors [2002] ScotCS 60 (6th March, 2002)

Smith v. Goldthorpe & Ors [2002] ScotCS 60 (6th March, 2002)

Despite deficiencies and confusion in the pleadings, the pursuer's averments are just sufficient to give notice of the case in negligence, and the action should not be dismissed at this stage; a proof before answer is allowed with amendments to the pleadings.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 60
Parties
Pursuer: Gillian A Smith; Defender: Anthony Goldthorpe; Defender: Alison Goldthorpe; Defender: Maureen Goldthorpe; Defender: Nicholas Goldthorpe
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; amendments to pleadings permitted; certain averments deleted.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Pleadings, Duty of Care, Partnership Liability, Proof Before Answer
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Negligence Pleadings Duty of Care Partnership Liability Proof Before Answer

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillian A Smith

Pursuer

Anthony Goldthorpe

Defender

Alison Goldthorpe

Defender

Maureen Goldthorpe

Defender

Nicholas Goldthorpe

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case in negligence against the defenders for injuries caused by a canopy detaching from a pickup truck in windy conditions
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings sufficiently specify the factual basis for the alleged negligence
  3. 3 Whether the action should be dismissed at this stage for lack of relevancy or specification

Ratio Decidendi

Despite deficiencies and confusion in the pleadings, the pursuer's averments are just sufficient to give notice of the case in negligence, and the action should not be dismissed at this stage; a proof before answer is allowed with amendments to the pleadings.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; amendments to pleadings permitted; certain averments deleted.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer
  • Allow pursuer's counsel to amend pleadings as suggested