HELEN COYLE ON BEHALF OF RYAN COYLE AGAINST LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD [2014] ScotCS CSIH_78 (25 September 2014)

HELEN COYLE ON BEHALF OF RYAN COYLE AGAINST LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD [2014] ScotCS CSIH_78 (25 September 2014)

The Lord Ordinary was entitled to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that had the midwives sought urgent medical assistance at 2255, Ryan Coyle would have been delivered before 2315 and would not have suffered injury; there was evidential basis for this finding in Dr Anderson's testimony and supporting expert evidence.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_78
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Helen Coyle on behalf of Ryan Coyle; Defenders and Reclaimers: Lanarkshire Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Judgment on Appeal Against Findings of Liability and Causation
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; judgment for pursuer upheld
Legal Topics
Causation, Breach of Duty, Standard of Appellate Review, Damages for Birth Injury

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

Parties

Helen Coyle on behalf of Ryan Coyle

Pursuer and Respondent

Lanarkshire Health Board

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Judgment on Appeal Against Findings of Liability and Causation

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary was plainly wrong in finding causation between breach of duty by midwives and injury to Ryan Coyle
  2. 2 Whether Ryan Coyle would have been delivered before 2315 if midwives had called for urgent medical assistance at 2255

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was entitled to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that had the midwives sought urgent medical assistance at 2255, Ryan Coyle would have been delivered before 2315 and would not have suffered injury; there was evidential basis for this finding in Dr Anderson's testimony and supporting expert evidence.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; judgment for pursuer upheld

Orders

  • Liability and causation findings in favour of pursuer affirmed
  • Damages to be paid as previously agreed by parties