Hill v Norisde Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSIH_44 (29 May 2013)

Hill v Norisde Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSIH_44 (29 May 2013)

The defenders had primary control over the site and failed in their statutory duty to provide a safe means of access, which was the principal cause of the accident. The pursuer's failure to tie the ladder was at most inadvertence or inattention and did not warrant a higher finding of contributory negligence than that assessed by the Lord Ordinary.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_44
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Ronald Hill; Defenders/reclaimers: Norside Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reclaiming Motion / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; assessment of contributory negligence by the Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duty of Employers, Work at Height Regulations, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, Assessment of Damages
Personal Injury Occupational Health and Safety Employment Law Contributory Negligence Statutory Duty of Employers Work at Height Regulations Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations Assessment of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Hill

Pursuer/respondent

Norside Limited

Defenders/reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reclaiming Motion / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in assessing the degree of contributory negligence attributable to the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' statutory breaches were the primary cause of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's failure to tie the ladder constituted more than inadvertence or inattention.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders had primary control over the site and failed in their statutory duty to provide a safe means of access, which was the principal cause of the accident. The pursuer's failure to tie the ladder was at most inadvertence or inattention and did not warrant a higher finding of contributory negligence than that assessed by the Lord Ordinary.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; assessment of contributory negligence by the Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused.
  • Assessment of contributory negligence at 20% upheld.