NM against TO and AO (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 39 (07 March 2024)

NM against TO and AO (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 39 (07 March 2024)

The defenders did not breach their duty of care under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. The discharge temperature of 55°C at the bath hot water tap was normal for a property of this age and type, was not a failure of maintenance or repair, and did not render the property unfit for habitation or unsafe. The defenders were entitled to assume that the pursuer would provide reasonable supervision to her children. There was no statutory or common law duty on the defenders to install a TMV or limit the bath hot water temperature to 48°C or less. The accident was not caused by any breach of duty by the defenders.

Citation
[2025] SCEDIN 39
Parties
Pursuer: NM; First Defender: TO; Second Defender: AO
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (nervous Shock) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the initial writ; pursuer's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Landlord's Duty of Care, Scalding Injuries, Secondary Victim Claims, Building Regulations Compliance
Tort Landlord and Tenant Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Landlord's Duty of Care Scalding Injuries Secondary Victim Claims Building Regulations Compliance

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NM

Pursuer

TO

First Defender

AO

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (nervous Shock) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (landlords) breached their duty of care under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 by failing to control the temperature of hot water at the property, resulting in injury to the pursuer's children and nervous shock to the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a thermostatic mixing valve (TMV) or failure to limit bath hot water temperature to 48°C or less constituted a failure in maintenance or repair duties under the 1960 Act or the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders did not breach their duty of care under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. The discharge temperature of 55°C at the bath hot water tap was normal for a property of this age and type, was not a failure of maintenance or repair, and did not render the property unfit for habitation or unsafe. The defenders were entitled to assume that the pursuer would provide reasonable supervision to her children. There was no statutory or common law duty on the defenders to install a TMV or limit the bath hot water temperature to 48°C or less. The accident was not caused by any breach of duty by the defenders.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the initial writ; pursuer's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defenders absolved from liability; no damages awarded to pursuer.