Scotland Case Law

RICHARDS, (FIRST) ; AND (SECOND JOHN JARVIE AGAINST PHARMACIA LIMITED, c/o PFIZER LIMITED

RICHARDS, (FIRST) ; AND (SECOND JOHN JARVIE AGAINST PHARMACIA LIMITED, c/o PFIZER LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSIH_31 (24 April 2018)

The Inner House refused Pharmacia’s reclaiming motion, holding the pursuers’ pleadings on Celebrex, cardiovascular risk, and failure to warn were sufficiently specific for proof before answer.

• Defective pharmaceutical products
• Duty to warn
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Causation
• Regulatory compliance
• Product-liability

Read case analysis

AH AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD AND ANOTHER; SR AGAINST JOHNSON AND JOHNSON MEDICAL LTD AND ANOTHER; YT AGAINST SPIRE HEALTHCARE LIMITED AND OTHERS; AND EN AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD AND OTHERS

AH AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD AND ANOTHER; SR AGAINST JOHNSON AND JOHNSON MEDICAL LTD AND ANOTHER; YT AGAINST SPIRE HEALTHCARE LIMITED AND OTHERS; AND EN AGAINST GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD AND OTHERS [2018] ScotCS CSOH_57 (01 June 2018)

Doctors' duty to advise of risks is limited to risks associated with the procedure and reasonable alternatives as determined by clinical judgment; generic pleadings and lack of specification regarding alternative treatments and doctors' knowledge of risks are insufficient; claims against manufacturers proceed only under Consumer Protection Act 1987; time-bar issues require further factual determination; actions against doctors proceed only on alleged breach of duty to advise of risks, not alternatives.

Source excerpt

• Informed consent
• Duty of care
• Alternative treatments
• Defective medical devices
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Prescription and limitation (scotland) act 1973

Read case analysis

AH against Greater Glasgow Health Board and Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd

AH against Greater Glasgow Health Board and Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2018] CSOH 57 (06 January 2018)

Lead Scottish mesh cases on consent, defect, and time bar. The court narrowed the doctors’ case to risk warnings, allowed Consumer Protection Act claims, and reserved limitation issues.

• Informed consent
• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Causation
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Limitation/prescription

Read case analysis

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1)

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

Appeal in a product liability claim over a car handbrake failure. The court held the pursuer had not proved that a defect caused the accident under the 1987 Act.

• Defective products
• Causation
• Burden of proof
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Product safety
• Contributory negligence

Read case analysis

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1)

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

The Inner House refused a reclaiming motion in a product-liability claim over a rolled car, holding the pursuer had not proved a defect or causation.

• Defective products
• Causation
• Burden of proof
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Product safety
• Contributory negligence

Read case analysis

McGlinchey v General Motors UK Ltd

McGlinchey v General Motors UK Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_206 (29 November 2011)

The court held that the pursuer failed to prove causation or that any handbrake defect existed when the car left the manufacturer, so the claim failed.

• Defective products
• Causation
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Common law negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Product-liability

Read case analysis

Bruce v Brown & Anor

Bruce v Brown & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_165 (11 October 2011)

Personal injury action in which the Court of Session refused a procedure roll debate and allowed an eight-day proof, finding the pleadings could support inquiry.

• Negligence
• Common law fault
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Procedural rules (chapter 43)
• Personal-injury
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Chadwick v Continental Tyre Group Ltd

Chadwick v Continental Tyre Group Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_24 (08 February 2008)

A Scottish product liability case on whether a tyre defect or foreseeable misuse under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 made the pleadings relevant.

• Defective products
• Manufacturing defect
• Strict liability
• Consumer protection act 1987
• Ec directive 85/374/eec
• Public expectation of safety

Read case analysis