Riddell v. Corporation of Glasgow [1910] ScotLR 630 (18 May 1910)

Riddell v. Corporation of Glasgow [1910] ScotLR 630 (18 May 1910)

The Corporation is vicariously liable for the slander uttered by its servant Gilmour, as the statements were made within the scope of his employment while collecting taxes. The occasions were privileged, but sufficient averments of malice were made through allegations of reckless and persistent conduct, justifying the issues being put to a jury.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 630
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Esther Lorimer or Riddell; Defender: Corporation of the City of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 May 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Master and Servant
Tort Employment Law Slander Vicarious Liability Qualified Privilege Malice Master and Servant

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

Parties

Mrs Esther Lorimer or Riddell

Pursuer

Corporation of the City of Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Corporation is vicariously liable for slander uttered by its servant in the course of employment
  2. 2 Whether the occasion of the slander was privileged
  3. 3 Whether malice was sufficiently averred to defeat privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The Corporation is vicariously liable for the slander uttered by its servant Gilmour, as the statements were made within the scope of his employment while collecting taxes. The occasions were privileged, but sufficient averments of malice were made through allegations of reckless and persistent conduct, justifying the issues being put to a jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Issues allowed to go to jury, including malice.
  • Corporation remains as defender; no absolvitor granted.