Savigar v Ainscough Crane Hire Ltd [2021] EWHC 2707 (QB) (11 October 2021)

Savigar v Ainscough Crane Hire Ltd [2021] EWHC 2707 (QB) (11 October 2021)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by the moving hook block, as the trial judge was entitled to accept evidence that the crane and hook block did not move and to consider alternative explanations. The judge's findings were not plainly wrong or unsupported by evidence, and no error of law or fact was established.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2707
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Martin Savigar; Defendant/respondent: Ainscough Crane Hire Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim (appeal) / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Burden of Proof, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Adverse Inferences, Evidential Standards
Tort Law Personal Injury Employer's Liability Negligence Burden of Proof Res Ipsa Loquitur Adverse Inferences Evidential Standards

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Savigar

Claimant/appellant

Ainscough Crane Hire Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Claim (appeal) / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant proved on the balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by a moving hook block attached to the defendant's crane
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law or fact in rejecting the claimant's case and in her treatment of evidence, adverse inferences, and alternative explanations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by the moving hook block, as the trial judge was entitled to accept evidence that the crane and hook block did not move and to consider alternative explanations. The judge's findings were not plainly wrong or unsupported by evidence, and no error of law or fact was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed