MacIver v J & A Gardner Ltd [2000] ScotCS 204 (19 July 2000)

MacIver v J & A Gardner Ltd [2000] ScotCS 204 (19 July 2000)

There is no exception in law to the employer's duty of care for a ship's master; the employer remains responsible for devising and maintaining a safe system of work. The pursuer's averments, if proved, could establish a breach of that duty. The case is sufficiently relevant and specific to proceed to proof.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 204
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Denise MacIver; Defenders: J & A Gardner Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll Debate (preliminary Hearing on Relevancy of Pleadings)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; all averments to stand.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Safe System of Work, Liability for Workplace Accidents, Duties to Ship's Master, Delegation of Safety Responsibilities
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Maritime Law Employer's Duty of Care Safe System of Work Liability for Workplace Accidents Duties to Ship's Master Delegation of Safety Responsibilities

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Denise MacIver

Pursuer

J & A Gardner Ltd

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury (employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll Debate (preliminary Hearing on Relevancy of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does an employer owe a duty of care to a ship's master regarding the system of work on board?
  2. 2 Is there an exception to the employer's duty of care for ship's masters?
  3. 3 Are the pursuer's pleadings sufficiently specific and relevant to instruct a case of breach of duty?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no exception in law to the employer's duty of care for a ship's master; the employer remains responsible for devising and maintaining a safe system of work. The pursuer's averments, if proved, could establish a breach of that duty. The case is sufficiently relevant and specific to proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; all averments to stand.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to proof before answer on the whole pleadings.