Ashmore v. Rock Steady Security Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_30 (21 February 2006)

Ashmore v. Rock Steady Security Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_30 (21 February 2006)

The defenders failed to prove that Moncrieff acted in lawful self-defence; any headbutt by the pursuer was minor and not a serious assault justifying the punch. Ex turpi causa does not apply as the pursuer's conduct was not sufficiently serious or inextricably linked to the injury. However, the pursuer's persistent verbal abuse and conduct amounted to provocation, warranting a 20% reduction in damages.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_30
Parties
Pursuer: Colin Ashmore; Defender: Rock Steady Security Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/delictual Claim / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Limited Issues of Liability and Contributory Fault
Outcome
Pursuer succeeds in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for provocation.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Assault, Self Defence, Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio, Provocation, Damages Reduction
Tort/delict Personal Injury Employment Law Vicarious Liability Assault Self Defence Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio Provocation +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Ashmore

Pursuer

Rock Steady Security Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/delictual Claim / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Limited Issues of Liability and Contributory Fault

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's employee (Moncrieff) acted in self-defence when striking the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claim is barred by ex turpi causa non oritur actio
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's damages should be reduced for provocation

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders failed to prove that Moncrieff acted in lawful self-defence; any headbutt by the pursuer was minor and not a serious assault justifying the punch. Ex turpi causa does not apply as the pursuer's conduct was not sufficiently serious or inextricably linked to the injury. However, the pursuer's persistent verbal abuse and conduct amounted to provocation, warranting a 20% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Pursuer succeeds in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for provocation.

Orders

  • Pursuer's first plea-in-law sustained; defenders' pleas 1-6 repelled; defenders' seventh plea-in-law (provocation) sustained to effect of 20% reduction in damages.
  • Decree for pursuer in sum of £219,200 (80% of agreed damages), with interest at 8% per annum from 31 January 2006 until payment.