Mandelston v. North British Railway Co. [1917] ScotLR 357 (16 March 1917)

Mandelston v. North British Railway Co. [1917] ScotLR 357 (16 March 1917)

The statements alleged to have been made by the railway company's servants were not made within the scope of their employment or authority, and the company is not vicariously liable for any slander uttered outside such scope. The words complained of are not reasonably capable of bearing the slanderous innuendo attributed. The pursuer's averments do not establish a prima facie case for employer liability.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 357
Parties
Pursuer: Abraham Mandelston; Defenders: North British Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 1917
Procedural Posture
Reparation (damages for Slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered; defenders assoilzied with expenses
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Master and Servant Liability
Tort Employment Law Company Law Slander Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Master and Servant 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Mandelston

Pursuer

North British Railway Company

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Reparation (damages for Slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an employer vicariously liable for slander uttered by its servants outside the scope of their employment?
  2. 2 Were the statements made by the railway company's servants within the course of their employment and authority?
  3. 3 Are the alleged statements reasonably capable of bearing the slanderous innuendo attributed to them?

Ratio Decidendi

The statements alleged to have been made by the railway company's servants were not made within the scope of their employment or authority, and the company is not vicariously liable for any slander uttered outside such scope. The words complained of are not reasonably capable of bearing the slanderous innuendo attributed. The pursuer's averments do not establish a prima facie case for employer liability.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered; defenders assoilzied with expenses

Orders

  • Issues disallowed
  • Defenders assoilzied (absolved)