Donald v. McDonald [2006] ScotCS CSOH_42_2 (14 March 2006)

Donald v. McDonald [2006] ScotCS CSOH_42_2 (14 March 2006)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was a patch of compressed snow or ice on the steps that caused her fall. Even if such a patch existed, there was no evidence that the defender knew or ought to have known of its presence, nor that she failed to take reasonable care as required by section 2(1) of the 1960 Act. Accordingly, no breach of duty was established and the claim fails.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_42_2
Parties
Pursuer: Anne Donald; Defender: Linda McDonald
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (liability Only) / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability); action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Reasonableness of Precautions, Domestic Premises Liability
Tort Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Reasonableness of Precautions Domestic Premises Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne Donald

Pursuer

Linda McDonald

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (liability Only) / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a patch of compressed snow or ice on the defender's steps that caused the pursuer's fall?
  2. 2 Did the defender breach her duty of care under section 2(1) of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was a patch of compressed snow or ice on the steps that caused her fall. Even if such a patch existed, there was no evidence that the defender knew or ought to have known of its presence, nor that she failed to take reasonable care as required by section 2(1) of the 1960 Act. Accordingly, no breach of duty was established and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability); action dismissed.

Orders

  • Defender assoilzied; no damages awarded to pursuer.