M'Adam v. City and Suburban Dairies, Ltd [1911] ScotLR 318 (26 January 1911)

M'Adam v. City and Suburban Dairies, Ltd [1911] ScotLR 318 (26 January 1911)

The words spoken by the defender's servant did not amount to actionable slander, as they merely conveyed advice and notification of instructions rather than an accusation of dishonesty. Even if the words were slanderous, the employer could not be held vicariously liable because the utterance was not within the scope of the servant's employment or duty to the employer. No special circumstances were averred to justify holding the employer liable for the servant's alleged slander.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 318
Parties
Pursuer: Samuel M'Adam; Defender: City and Suburban Dairies, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Trial
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Master and Servant, Reparation
Tort Employment Law Slander Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Master and Servant Reparation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel M'Adam

Pursuer

City and Suburban Dairies, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words spoken by the defender's servant constituted actionable slander against the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the employer (defender) could be held vicariously liable for the alleged slander uttered by its servant.

Ratio Decidendi

The words spoken by the defender's servant did not amount to actionable slander, as they merely conveyed advice and notification of instructions rather than an accusation of dishonesty. Even if the words were slanderous, the employer could not be held vicariously liable because the utterance was not within the scope of the servant's employment or duty to the employer. No special circumstances were averred to justify holding the employer liable for the servant's alleged slander.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • First plea-in-law for the defenders sustained.
  • Action dismissed.