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 appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by a moving hook block. The judge's acceptance of the evidence regarding the lack of movement of the crane and hook block, and the existence of at least one plausible alternative explanation (assault), meant that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The judge did not err in law or fact, nor in her approach to res ipsa loquitur or adverse inferences.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2707 (QB)
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 her assessment of the evidence and application of legal principles, including res ipsa loquitur and adverse inferences

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by a moving hook block. The judge's acceptance of the evidence regarding the lack of movement of the crane and hook block, and the existence of at least one plausible alternative explanation (assault), meant that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The judge did not err in law or fact, nor in her approach to res ipsa loquitur or adverse inferences.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed