Aiken v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1912] ScotLR 45 (06 November 1912)

Aiken v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1912] ScotLR 45 (06 November 1912)

The pursuer's averments disclosed that the manager's slanderous statements were made solely to gratify personal ill-will and not for the benefit or purposes of the employer. Therefore, the slander was not within the scope of employment, malice could not be imputed to the employer, and the action was irrelevant against the defenders.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 45
Parties
Pursuer: Annie Aiken; Defender: Caledonian Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 November 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Allowance of Issues
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Master and Servant, Privileged Occasion, Malice
Tort Employment Law Slander Vicarious Liability Master and Servant Privileged Occasion Malice

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Aiken

Pursuer

Caledonian Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Lord Ordinary's Allowance of Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a corporation is vicariously liable for slander uttered by its servant where the servant acted maliciously to gratify personal spite and not for the employer's benefit
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to impute malice to the employer and defeat privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments disclosed that the manager's slanderous statements were made solely to gratify personal ill-will and not for the benefit or purposes of the employer. Therefore, the slander was not within the scope of employment, malice could not be imputed to the employer, and the action was irrelevant against the defenders.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled
  • First plea-in-law for defenders sustained