CHARLES MCINALLY AGAINST ARCUS FM Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_146 (01 October 2014)

CHARLES MCINALLY AGAINST ARCUS FM Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_146 (01 October 2014)

The pursuer failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the stepladder failed due to a pre-existing defect while he was using it. The expert evidence demonstrated the damage to the ladder was caused by the pursuer falling onto it, not by a defect causing the fall. Therefore, the defenders are not liable under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_146
Parties
Pursuer: Charles McInally; Defender: Arcus FM Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Work Equipment, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Employer's Liability Work Equipment Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Burden of Proof Expert Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles McInally

Pursuer

Arcus FM Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's fall was caused by a pre-existing defect in the stepladder supplied by the employer
  2. 2 Whether the employer is strictly liable under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 if the stepladder failed
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supports the pursuer's account or the defenders' expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the stepladder failed due to a pre-existing defect while he was using it. The expert evidence demonstrated the damage to the ladder was caused by the pursuer falling onto it, not by a defect causing the fall. Therefore, the defenders are not liable under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the first conclusion of the summons.
  • Award of expenses in favour of the defenders.