Sharp v. Highland And Islands Fire Board [2005] ScotCS CSOH_111 (18 August 2005)

Sharp v. Highland And Islands Fire Board [2005] ScotCS CSOH_111 (18 August 2005)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the second defender's error of judgment in making the tackle went beyond what may reasonably be regarded as excusable for a reasonable football player in the circumstances. There was insufficient factual evidence to conclude that the tackle was so bad that no reasonable player would have made it. Accordingly, negligence was not established and the defenders are not liable.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_111
Parties
Pursuer: David Sharp; First Defenders: Highland and Islands Fire Board; Second Defender: Steven McLean
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the first defenders.
Legal Topics
Negligence in Sport, Vicarious Liability, Standard of Care in Sporting Contests, Employer Liability for Employee Acts
Tort Employment Law Sports Law Negligence in Sport Vicarious Liability Standard of Care in Sporting Contests Employer Liability for Employee Acts

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

Parties

David Sharp

Pursuer

Highland and Islands Fire Board

First Defenders

Steven McLean

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defender was negligent in tackling the pursuer during a football match
  2. 2 Whether the first defenders are vicariously liable for the acts of the second defender

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the second defender's error of judgment in making the tackle went beyond what may reasonably be regarded as excusable for a reasonable football player in the circumstances. There was insufficient factual evidence to conclude that the tackle was so bad that no reasonable player would have made it. Accordingly, negligence was not established and the defenders are not liable.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the first defenders.

Orders

  • Sustain second plea-in-law for first defenders
  • Repel first plea-in-law for pursuer