NM against Graeme Henderson and another (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 84 (23 August 2024)

NM against Graeme Henderson and another (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 84 (23 August 2024)

The pursuer's case against the first defender is not bound to fail except for certain averments in Statement V, which are excluded as irrelevant. The pursuer's case against the second defenders on direct duty of care is dismissed due to lack of proximity and absence of analogous authority. The vicarious liability claim against the second defenders is not bound to fail and will proceed to proof.

Citation
[2024] CSOH 84
Parties
Pursuer: NM; First Defender: Graeme Henderson; Second Defender: Scottish Ambulance Service
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action Under Chapter 43, Court of Session / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory
Outcome
Partial dismissal and partial exclusion of averments; remaining issues to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Harassment, Specification of Pleadings, Employer Liability, Statutory Duties Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Tort Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Interpretation Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Harassment Specification of Pleadings +2 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NM

Pursuer

Graeme Henderson

First Defender

Scottish Ambulance Service

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action Under Chapter 43, Court of Session / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's averments against first defender are sufficiently specified and relevant
  2. 2 Whether second defenders are vicariously liable for first defender's conduct
  3. 3 Whether second defenders directly owed a duty of care to pursuer and breached it

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's case against the first defender is not bound to fail except for certain averments in Statement V, which are excluded as irrelevant. The pursuer's case against the second defenders on direct duty of care is dismissed due to lack of proximity and absence of analogous authority. The vicarious liability claim against the second defenders is not bound to fail and will proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal and partial exclusion of averments; remaining issues to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Certain averments in Statement V excluded from probation as irrelevant to first defender.
  • Direct duty of care claim against second defenders dismissed.