Dickson v. Hygienic Institute [1910] ScotLR 286_1 (04 February 1910)

Dickson v. Hygienic Institute [1910] ScotLR 286_1 (04 February 1910)

The defenders, by holding themselves out as competent dental practitioners and contracting to perform dental operations, were bound to exercise the ordinary skill and care of registered dentists. Their employee, Mr Dalziel senior, failed to meet this standard, causing serious injury to the pursuer. The defenders are liable in damages for breach of contract and negligence.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 286_1
Parties
Pursuer: Bethia C. Dickson; Defender: Hygienic Institute
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 February 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutors affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Duty of Care, Unregistered Practitioners, Standard of Care
Contract Tort Medical Negligence Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Duty of Care Unregistered Practitioners Standard of Care

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bethia C. Dickson

Pursuer

Hygienic Institute

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders, by holding themselves out as competent dental practitioners, owed a duty to exercise the ordinary skill of registered dentists.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached their contractual and professional duty by performing dental operations negligently.
  3. 3 Whether liability is affected by the pursuer's knowledge or lack thereof of the defenders' unregistered status.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, by holding themselves out as competent dental practitioners and contracting to perform dental operations, were bound to exercise the ordinary skill and care of registered dentists. Their employee, Mr Dalziel senior, failed to meet this standard, causing serious injury to the pursuer. The defenders are liable in damages for breach of contract and negligence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutors affirmed

Orders

  • Defenders found liable in damages to pursuer.
  • Damages assessed at £30.