McCarthy v Highland Council [2011] ScotCS CSIH_51 (12 August 2011)

Following the violent incident on 7 June 2001, the defenders owed a duty to provide a dedicated male support worker for the pupil M. Their failure to do so constituted a breach of duty of care, and this breach caused or materially contributed to the pursuer's injury.

Citation: [2011] ScotCS CSIH_51
Parties: Pursuer/respondent: Teresa McCarthy; Defenders/appellants: Highland Council
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 12 August 2011
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Sheriff Court
Outcome: Appeal allowed only to the extent of altering certain findings-in-fact and findings-in-fact-and-law; quoad ultra appeal refused; pursuer remains entitled to damages.
Legal Topics: Duty of Care, Negligence, Causation, Staff Safety, Reasonable Precautions

Personal Injury Employment Law Education Law Duty of Care Negligence Causation Staff Safety Reasonable Precautions

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Teresa McCarthy

Pursuer/respondent

Highland Council

Defenders/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

1 Did the defenders breach their duty of care to the pursuer by failing to provide adequate support and protection from a violent pupil?
2 Was the breach of duty causative of the pursuer's injury and subsequent depressive episode?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed only to the extent of altering certain findings-in-fact and findings-in-fact-and-law; quoad ultra appeal refused; pursuer remains entitled to damages.

Orders

Alter finding-in-fact 35 to clarify timing of first violent incident.
Alter findings-in-fact-and-law 2, 4, and 5 to specify duty and breach regarding provision of male support worker.