Maureen Flood v. The University Court of the University of Glasgow [2008] CSOH 98

Reparation - Debate:- In this action the pursuer, a senior lecturer employed with the defenders from 1999 to 2001, sought damages from the defenders after she went off work with symptoms that she attributed to her excessive workload and lead her to be diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric injury. At debate it was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the action should be dismissed on three grounds:- (1) on the pursuer's averments, the defenders could not have foreseen the risk of psychiatric harm to the pursuer; (2) any claim that there was a duty on the defenders to carry out a risk assessment was disputed; and (3) the pursuer's averments regarding the steps which the defenders should have taken in order to fulfil their duty of care were challenged. In response on behalf of the pursuer a proof before answer was sought as it was not possible to hold that the case would necessarily fail at proof having regard to the pleadings on the folowing grounds:- (1) the risk of psychiatric damage to the pursuer was reasonably foreseeable; (2) no risk assessment case had in fact been pled; and (3) fair notice had been given to the defenders of the steps which they should have taken to satisfy their duty of care. Here the court considered inter alia whether the pursuer's averments went far enough to identify the steps which the defenders should have taken to relieve the pursuer of some of her workload.