KAIZER (AP) AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_36 (29 May 2018)

KAIZER (AP) AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_36 (29 May 2018)

The defenders' admitted negligence in failing to report a specific threat exposed the pursuer to a foreseeable risk of injury. On the balance of probabilities, had the threat been reported, reasonable prison procedures and heightened supervision would have prevented the assault. Causation was therefore established, and the defenders are liable for the pursuer's injuries.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_36
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Daniel Kaizer (AP); Defenders and Reclaimers: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of 22 August 2017 adhered to; case remitted to Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Prisoner Safety
Tort Law Prison Law Personal Injury Negligence Causation Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Prisoner Safety

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kaizer (AP)

Pursuer and Respondent

The Scottish Ministers

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' negligence (failure to report a threat) caused the pursuer's injuries
  2. 2 Whether, but for the negligence, the assault would have been avoided

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' admitted negligence in failing to report a specific threat exposed the pursuer to a foreseeable risk of injury. On the balance of probabilities, had the threat been reported, reasonable prison procedures and heightened supervision would have prevented the assault. Causation was therefore established, and the defenders are liable for the pursuer's injuries.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of 22 August 2017 adhered to; case remitted to Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords.

Orders

  • Defenders found liable to the pursuer for loss, injury and damage sustained on 4 December 2009.
  • Case remitted to Lord Ordinary for further procedure.