JANICE FLYNN v. LOTHIAN AND BORDERS POLICE [2010] ScotSC 131 (02 August 2010)

JANICE FLYNN v. LOTHIAN AND BORDERS POLICE [2010] ScotSC 131 (02 August 2010)

The pursuer's averments regarding attacking or harrying by the police dog, the nature of the surface, and previous incidents are sufficiently relevant and specified to go to proof. Strict liability under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 may apply if the injury is directly referable to attacking or harrying, even if not directed at the pursuer, and the surface issue is a matter for proof. Reference to drainage under regulation 12(2)(b) is excluded as irrelevant.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 131
Parties
Pursuer: Janice Flynn; Defenders: Lothian and Borders Police
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Allowance of Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Defenders' second plea-in-law sustained to the extent of excluding from probation the averment regarding drainage; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability for Animals, Workplace Safety, Specification of Pleadings, Interpretation of Animals (scotland) Act 1987, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Law Animal Law Strict Liability for Animals Workplace Safety Specification of Pleadings Interpretation of Animals (scotland) Act 1987 +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janice Flynn

Pursuer

Lothian and Borders Police

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification; Allowance of Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments regarding attacking or harrying by the police dog are relevant and sufficiently specified
  2. 2 Whether the surface of the traffic route was unsuitable and contributed to the accident
  3. 3 Whether previous incidents and notice to defenders are relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments regarding attacking or harrying by the police dog, the nature of the surface, and previous incidents are sufficiently relevant and specified to go to proof. Strict liability under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 may apply if the injury is directly referable to attacking or harrying, even if not directed at the pursuer, and the surface issue is a matter for proof. Reference to drainage under regulation 12(2)(b) is excluded as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Defenders' second plea-in-law sustained to the extent of excluding from probation the averment regarding drainage; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Exclusion from probation of averment in Article 4 regarding drainage (regulation 12(2)(b))
  • Proof before answer allowed on remaining averments