MacKay v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_55 (07 May 2015)

MacKay v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_55 (07 May 2015)

The defenders were acting under statutory powers, not duties, and did not create or worsen the risk. There was no proximity or assumption of responsibility between the defenders and the pursuer. The facts did not justify extension of a duty of care. Accordingly, the action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_55
Parties
Pursuer: John MacKay; First Defender: Scottish Fire & Rescue Service; Second Defender: Another (Second Defender)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Reparation (delict) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed as irrelevant (no duty of care owed)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Statutory Powers and Duties, Liability of Public Authorities
Tort/delict Public Law Negligence Duty of Care Statutory Powers and Duties Liability of Public Authorities

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John MacKay

Pursuer

Scottish Fire & Rescue Service

First Defender

Another (Second Defender)

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Reparation (delict) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuer when acting under statutory powers rather than duties
  2. 2 Whether proximity or assumption of responsibility existed between the parties
  3. 3 Whether the facts justified extension of delictual liability to the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were acting under statutory powers, not duties, and did not create or worsen the risk. There was no proximity or assumption of responsibility between the defenders and the pursuer. The facts did not justify extension of a duty of care. Accordingly, the action is irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as irrelevant (no duty of care owed)

Orders

  • Action dismissed against both defenders