Christie Or Stewart v Lothian Health Board [1998] ScotCS 58 (6 November 1998)

Christie Or Stewart v Lothian Health Board [1998] ScotCS 58 (6 November 1998)

The court held that Dr. Armstrong's account of the flow test was credible and supported by expert evidence as a possible, though rare, occurrence. The evidence did not require a finding of negligence, and the Lord Ordinary's reasoning was insufficient to support the conclusion of fault. The reclaiming motion was allowed, and the defenders' pleas were sustained.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 58
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mrs. Eileen Christie or Stewart; Defenders and Reclaimers: Lothian Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appellate Judgment Following Proof at First Instance
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of 2 April 1997 recalled; defenders' second and third pleas-in-law sustained; pursuer's pleas repelled.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care in Medical Procedures, Expert Evidence in Negligence, Appellate Review of Factual Findings, Liability of Health Boards for Staff Acts
Medical Negligence Tort Personal Injury Standard of Care in Medical Procedures Expert Evidence in Negligence Appellate Review of Factual Findings Liability of Health Boards for Staff 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Eileen Christie or Stewart

Pursuer and Respondent

Lothian Health Board

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appellate Judgment Following Proof at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Armstrong was negligent in performing the 'flow test' during jugular vein catheterization
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supported a finding of fault against the Lothian Health Board for the injury caused

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Dr. Armstrong's account of the flow test was credible and supported by expert evidence as a possible, though rare, occurrence. The evidence did not require a finding of negligence, and the Lord Ordinary's reasoning was insufficient to support the conclusion of fault. The reclaiming motion was allowed, and the defenders' pleas were sustained.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of 2 April 1997 recalled; defenders' second and third pleas-in-law sustained; pursuer's pleas repelled.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 2 April 1997
  • Sustain defenders' second and third pleas-in-law