Mackenzie v. Cluny Hill Hydropathic Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 139 (23 November 1907)

Mackenzie v. Cluny Hill Hydropathic Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 139 (23 November 1907)

The averments are relevant and disclose a case fit for trial; if the manager, acting within the scope of his employment, wrongfully detained the pursuer, the employer may be vicariously liable. The facts must be ascertained at trial to determine liability.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 139
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Martha G. Breeze or Mackenzie; Defender: Cluny Hill Hydropathic Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (reparation) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal, Seeking Allowance of Issue for Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; issue allowed for jury trial.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, False Imprisonment, Master and Servant Liability, Scope of Employment
Tort Employment Law Vicarious Liability False Imprisonment Master and Servant Liability Scope of Employment

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Martha G. Breeze or Mackenzie

Pursuer

Cluny Hill Hydropathic Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (reparation) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal, Seeking Allowance of Issue for Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the averments disclose a relevant case of actionable wrong against the employer for the manager's alleged wrongful detention of the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the manager was acting within the scope of his employment when detaining the pursuer.
  3. 3 Whether the incident was so trifling as to be non-actionable (de minimis).

Ratio Decidendi

The averments are relevant and disclose a case fit for trial; if the manager, acting within the scope of his employment, wrongfully detained the pursuer, the employer may be vicariously liable. The facts must be ascertained at trial to determine liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; issue allowed for jury trial.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action.
  • Allowance of an issue for jury trial: whether the defenders' manager, acting within the scope of his employment, wrongfully detained the pursuer to her loss, injury, and damage.