A AGAINST B LIMITED & Anor [2022] ScotCS CSOH_34 (27 April 2022)
The pursuer failed to establish a relevant case that the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk due to the defenders' actions. The facts are analogous to Thomson v Scottish Ministers, where no duty of care was found. The defenders are not liable for the criminal acts of X, as no special relationship or proximity existed.
- Citation
- [2022] ScotCS CSOH_34
- Parties
- Pursuer: A; First Defenders: B Limited; Second Defenders: C Council
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 27 April 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Negligence Action / Procedure Roll (debate)
- Outcome
- action dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Duty of Care, Negligence, Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties, Public Custodianship
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A
Pursuer
B Limited
First Defenders
C Council
Second Defenders
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Action / Procedure Roll (debate)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether defenders owed a duty of care to the victim for criminal acts of X
- 2 Whether the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk
- 3 Whether proximity and foreseeability were established
Ratio Decidendi
The pursuer failed to establish a relevant case that the victim belonged to a distinct or special class at risk due to the defenders' actions. The facts are analogous to Thomson v Scottish Ministers, where no duty of care was found. The defenders are not liable for the criminal acts of X, as no special relationship or proximity existed.
Court Disposition
action dismissed
Orders
- Action dismissed; defenders not liable for criminal acts of X.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment