Gilman v UPS Ltd & Anor

Gilman v UPS Ltd & Anor

Neither UPS nor Network Rail owed a duty of care in the circumstances to take further steps to prevent vehicle incursion from the depot onto the railway line. The risk was not reasonably foreseeable to a reasonably careful occupier or railway operator, given the absence of prior incidents, the nature of the site, and the lack of industry guidance requiring such measures. Even if a duty existed, causation was not established as the site would not have been prioritised for remedial action, and it was speculative whether any measures would have been implemented before the accident. The claims against both defendants therefore fail.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Gilman; First Defendant: UPS Limited; Second Defendant: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability Contribution Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed against both defendants
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Risk Assessment, Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Health and Safety Negligence Duty of Care Foreseeability Risk Assessment Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Gilman

Claimant

UPS Limited

First Defendant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability Contribution Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UPS Limited owed a duty of care to railway users to prevent vehicle incursion from its depot onto the railway line
  2. 2 Whether Network Rail owed a duty of care to railway users to assess and mitigate the risk of vehicle incursion from adjoining private land
  3. 3 Whether the risk of vehicle incursion was reasonably foreseeable to UPS and/or Network Rail

Ratio Decidendi

Neither UPS nor Network Rail owed a duty of care in the circumstances to take further steps to prevent vehicle incursion from the depot onto the railway line. The risk was not reasonably foreseeable to a reasonably careful occupier or railway operator, given the absence of prior incidents, the nature of the site, and the lack of industry guidance requiring such measures. Even if a duty existed, causation was not established as the site would not have been prioritised for remedial action, and it was speculative whether any measures would have been implemented before the accident. The claims against both defendants therefore fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against both defendants

Orders

  • Claim against UPS Limited dismissed
  • Claim against Network Rail Infrastructure Limited dismissed