Hobbin v Vertical Descents Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_207 (16 December 2011)

Hobbin v Vertical Descents Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_207 (16 December 2011)

There was no evidence that the instructors were negligent or failed in their duty of care; the risks were inherent, properly disclosed, and the instructor did not direct Hobbin to stand on the dangerous rock. The claim fails on the merits.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_207
Parties
Pursuer: Sara Hobbin; Defender: Vertical Descents Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Risk in Adventure Activities, Waiver of Liability
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Risk in Adventure Activities Waiver of Liability

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

Parties

Sara Hobbin

Pursuer

Vertical Descents Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vertical Descents Limited was negligent in its duty of care towards Sara Hobbin during a canyoning activity
  2. 2 Whether the instructors should have removed Sara Hobbin from the activity due to her inability to cope
  3. 3 Whether the instructor directed Sara Hobbin to stand on a dangerous rock

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the instructors were negligent or failed in their duty of care; the risks were inherent, properly disclosed, and the instructor did not direct Hobbin to stand on the dangerous rock. The claim fails on the merits.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed