Noble v. De Boer [2003] ScotCS 54 (04 March 2004)

Noble v. De Boer [2003] ScotCS 54 (04 March 2004)

The defender, as fishing skipper with control and management of the vessel and crew during fishing operations, owed a duty of care to the pursuer. The defender breached that duty by failing to ensure that a large, unstable stone was either jettisoned or properly secured, resulting in the pursuer's injury. There was no sufficient evidential basis to find contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer, as it was not established that he could have practicably secured the stone or insisted on its disposal. The findings of fact from the preliminary proof were treated as binding by agreement of parties, but this was not a satisfactory legal basis absent such agreement.

Citation
[1996] AC 211
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Alexander Noble; Defender and Appellant: Cornelius De Boer
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court (personal Injury/reparation) / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment in Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Defender's appeal refused; pursuer's cross-appeal allowed in respect of contributory negligence; decree for full damages in favour of pursuer.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Employer's Liability, Procedural Law (preliminary Proof)
Tort Law Personal Injury Maritime Law Duty of Care Negligence Contributory Negligence Employer's Liability Procedural Law (preliminary Proof)

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Noble

Pursuer and Respondent

Cornelius De Boer

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court (personal Injury/reparation) / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment in Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty of care to the pursuer as fishing skipper during fishing operations
  2. 2 Whether the defender breached that duty by failing to secure or jettison a hazardous stone
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent for his own injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The defender, as fishing skipper with control and management of the vessel and crew during fishing operations, owed a duty of care to the pursuer. The defender breached that duty by failing to ensure that a large, unstable stone was either jettisoned or properly secured, resulting in the pursuer's injury. There was no sufficient evidential basis to find contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer, as it was not established that he could have practicably secured the stone or insisted on its disposal. The findings of fact from the preliminary proof were treated as binding by agreement of parties, but this was not a satisfactory legal basis absent such agreement.

Court Disposition

Defender's appeal refused; pursuer's cross-appeal allowed in respect of contributory negligence; decree for full damages in favour of pursuer.

Orders

  • Alter Sheriff Harris' Finding in Fact No. 7 by deleting 'on the instructions' and substituting 'with the knowledge and participation'.
  • Recall interlocutor of 29 November 2002 insofar as it reduced damages for contributory negligence; decree for payment by defender to pursuer of £294,858.36 with interest at 4% per annum from 13 November 1992 to 29 November 2002 and 8% per annum thereafter until payment.