Beaton v. Glasgow Corporation [1908] ScotLR 780 (17 June 1908)

Beaton v. Glasgow Corporation [1908] ScotLR 780 (17 June 1908)

The pursuer's averments are irrelevant because there is no special averment that the general manager of baths had authority to communicate reports to an outside body such as the School Board; forwarding the report was outside the scope of employment, and thus the corporation cannot be liable for slander.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 780
Parties
Pursuer: Daniel Beaton; Defender: Corporation of the City of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Reparation (slander) / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Slander, Master and Servant, Scope of Employment, Corporate Liability for Torts
Tort Employment Law Corporate Liability Slander Master and Servant Scope of Employment Corporate Liability for Torts

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Beaton

Pursuer

Corporation of the City of Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (slander) / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a corporation liable for slanderous statements made by its servant when there is no special averment that such communications were within the scope of employment?
  2. 2 Does forwarding a report containing slanderous statements to an outside body fall within the scope of a general manager's authority?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments are irrelevant because there is no special averment that the general manager of baths had authority to communicate reports to an outside body such as the School Board; forwarding the report was outside the scope of employment, and thus the corporation cannot be liable for slander.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Proof refused on averments relating to slander
  • Action dismissed against the Corporation