Stainsby v Fallon [2010] ScotCS CSIH_64 (06 July 2010)

Stainsby v Fallon [2010] ScotCS CSIH_64 (06 July 2010)

There was some evidence before the jury upon which they could have found the defender liable in negligence causing injury to Dylan, and the pleadings gave sufficient notice of the case. Therefore, the Lord Ordinary erred in withdrawing the case from the jury, and the assessment of negligence should have been left to the jury.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_64
Parties
Pursuer: Mhairi Stainsby; Defender: Janice Fallon
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Action / Appeal Against Withdrawal of Case From Jury and Motion for New Trial
Outcome
Pursuer's motion for a new trial granted
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Jury Trial, Pleadings, Withdrawal From Jury, Causation
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Jury Trial Pleadings Withdrawal From Jury +1 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mhairi Stainsby

Pursuer

Janice Fallon

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury Action / Appeal Against Withdrawal of Case From Jury and Motion for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in withdrawing the case from the jury on the basis that there was no evidence of negligence or causation against the defender
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings gave fair notice of the case made against the defender
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find negligence and causation

Ratio Decidendi

There was some evidence before the jury upon which they could have found the defender liable in negligence causing injury to Dylan, and the pleadings gave sufficient notice of the case. Therefore, the Lord Ordinary erred in withdrawing the case from the jury, and the assessment of negligence should have been left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's motion for a new trial granted

Orders

  • Case remitted for a new trial before a jury