Ruff Decision For Pursuer Involved In Dog Walking Accident

• Published date: 16 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Health & Safety, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Author: Fiona Dorman

Case comment on Donna Slater v. Tracy Ann McNelis [2023]

Slater v McNelis is an employers' liability case which proceeded in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court. The pursuer, who was a former employee of the defender, sustained significant injuries to her back on 20 July 2018 whilst walking a Doberman Pinscher called Khaleesi. Quantum was agreed in the sum of '345,890 inclusive of interest to 31 January 2023, and the proof was restricted to liability only.

The defender, Tracy McNelis, was one of two partners in the partnership trading as "Trossachs Holiday Park". The other partner was John Wrigley who died on 3 May 2021. It is the alleged actions of John Wrigley that were the subject of the action.

The pursuer claimed that she was walking Khaleesi during the course of her employment, and as such, the defender owed to her a duty to take reasonable care of her safety, and to not subject her to unnecessary risk of injury.

The circumstances and available evidence

The Pursuer gave evidence that she was employed as a warden and housekeeper on the holiday park by the partnership. She lived on the park with her husband, who was also employed by the park. The pursuer asserted that Khaleesi was a guard dog. She stated that John Wrigley never walked the dog, that another employee, Martin Scobie, was responsible for walking her. However, every member of staff had walked her at some point. She asserted that Khaleesi was a friendly, strong, overweight dog who was very nervous and frequently got spooked. She asserted that she had attended the park office on 20 July 2018 after finishing her shift early where she was instructed to walk Khaleesi by John Wrigley. She said that he had handed Khaleesi's lead to her. She stated she could not refuse this request as it was a request from her employer, and that walking the dog was a duty of her employment.

It was the defender's position that the pursuer had not been asked to walk Khaleesi, that she had taken it upon herself to walk her, and that she was not acting in the course of her employment when the accident occurred. It was their primary position that they were not liable for the accident. They argued that even if she had been acting in the course of her duties when walking the dog, there was no breach of their duty of care to her as Khaleesi was a friendly dog. They asserted that there was limited evidence of her nervous disposition, there was an absence of evidence that she constantly strained her lead when...