Finburghs v. Moss' Empires, Ltd [1908] ScotLR 792 (09 June 1908)

Finburghs v. Moss' Empires, Ltd [1908] ScotLR 792 (09 June 1908)

A company can be vicariously liable for verbal slander uttered by its servant if the servant acted within the scope of employment and for the company's benefit. The occasion was privileged, so malice must be put in issue, but no special averment of malice is required beyond the circumstances. The husband's claim was dismissed as the alleged slander against him was too remote and not within the servants' duty.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 792
Parties
Pursuer (wife): Mrs Dora Alexander or Finburgh; Pursuer (husband): David Finburgh; Defender: Moss' Empires, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation for Slander) / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issues
Outcome
In the wife's case, issues approved with insertion of 'and maliciously'; in the husband's case, action dismissed as irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Privilege in Defamation, Scope of Employment, Malice in Defamation
Tort Employment Law Company Law Slander Vicarious Liability Privilege in Defamation Scope of Employment Malice in Defamation

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

Parties

Mrs Dora Alexander or Finburgh

Pursuer (wife)

David Finburgh

Pursuer (husband)

Moss' Empires, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation for Slander) / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a company vicariously liable for verbal slander uttered by its servant within the scope of employment?
  2. 2 Does the occasion attract privilege, requiring malice to be put in issue?
  3. 3 Is the husband entitled to sue for slander by innuendo against himself arising from slander of his wife?

Ratio Decidendi

A company can be vicariously liable for verbal slander uttered by its servant if the servant acted within the scope of employment and for the company's benefit. The occasion was privileged, so malice must be put in issue, but no special averment of malice is required beyond the circumstances. The husband's claim was dismissed as the alleged slander against him was too remote and not within the servants' duty.

Court Disposition

In the wife's case, issues approved with insertion of 'and maliciously'; in the husband's case, action dismissed as irrelevant.

Orders

  • In the wife's case, issues to be tried by jury with malice inserted.
  • In the husband's case, action dismissed.