Thomas Ward against WM Morrison Supermarket PLC and others (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 17 (14 March 2025)

Thomas Ward against WM Morrison Supermarket PLC and others (National Personal Injury Court) [2025] SCEDIN 17 (14 March 2025)

The second defender breached its non-delegable common law duty of care by failing to carry out a risk assessment, provide training, or implement a safe system of work for the pursuer. The pursuer was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. The settlement with the first defender did not fully satisfy the pursuer's claim. The pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 30%. Damages are awarded accordingly.

Citation
[2025] SCEDIN 17
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Ward; First Defender: WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC; Second Defender: PPF Limited, trading as ADR Network
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Second defender found liable to make reparation to the pursuer, subject to 30% contributory negligence. Damages awarded against second defender for £56,818 inclusive of interest. Expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Common Law Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Accident, Settlement and Satisfaction, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (puwer)
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Liability Common Law Duty of Care Risk Assessment Contributory Negligence Workplace Accident +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Ward

Pursuer

WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC

First Defender

PPF Limited, trading as ADR Network

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defender (employer) breached its common law duty of care to the pursuer resulting in injury
  2. 2 Whether the settlement with the first defender discharged the second defender's liability
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The second defender breached its non-delegable common law duty of care by failing to carry out a risk assessment, provide training, or implement a safe system of work for the pursuer. The pursuer was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. The settlement with the first defender did not fully satisfy the pursuer's claim. The pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 30%. Damages are awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Second defender found liable to make reparation to the pursuer, subject to 30% contributory negligence. Damages awarded against second defender for £56,818 inclusive of interest. Expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Second defender to pay the pursuer £56,818 in damages inclusive of interest to date of decree.
  • Expenses reserved; hearing to be fixed on expenses.