Pate v Stewart Homes Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_30 (21 February 2013)

Pate v Stewart Homes Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_30 (21 February 2013)

The first defenders, as main contractors, retained sufficient control over the site and Mr Pate's work to owe statutory and common law duties to ensure a safe system and place of work. The removal of scaffolding and lack of edge protection or warning constituted breaches of both the 1996 and 2005 regulations and the common law duty of care. These breaches were causative of Mr Pate's fall and injury. However, Mr Pate's own actions in returning to the roof without informing the site supervisor and working without edge protection amounted to contributory negligence. Liability was apportioned accordingly.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_30
Parties
Pursuer: Eric Wallace, Solicitor, as Curator ad Litem to Ronald Pate (Assisted Person); First Defender: Stewart Homes (Scotland) Limited; Second Defender: Gerald O'Connor (Assisted Person)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/employers' Liability / Proof Restricted to Liability
Outcome
Liability established against first defenders, subject to contributory negligence
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Work at Height, Construction Site Safety, Statutory Breach, Common Law Negligence, Contributory Negligence
Personal Injury Health and Safety Employment Law Employer's Duty of Care Work at Height Construction Site Safety Statutory Breach Common Law Negligence +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Wallace, Solicitor, as Curator ad Litem to Ronald Pate (Assisted Person)

Pursuer

Stewart Homes (Scotland) Limited

First Defender

Gerald O'Connor (Assisted Person)

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/employers' Liability / Proof Restricted to Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defenders breached their common law and statutory duties to Mr Pate regarding work at height and site safety
  2. 2 Whether the accident was caused by the defenders' breach or by Mr Pate's own actions
  3. 3 Whether statutory duties under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and Work at Height Regulations 2005 applied at the material time

Ratio Decidendi

The first defenders, as main contractors, retained sufficient control over the site and Mr Pate's work to owe statutory and common law duties to ensure a safe system and place of work. The removal of scaffolding and lack of edge protection or warning constituted breaches of both the 1996 and 2005 regulations and the common law duty of care. These breaches were causative of Mr Pate's fall and injury. However, Mr Pate's own actions in returning to the roof without informing the site supervisor and working without edge protection amounted to contributory negligence. Liability was apportioned accordingly.

Court Disposition

Liability established against first defenders, subject to contributory negligence

Orders

  • First defenders found liable for breach of statutory and common law duties
  • Contributory negligence assessed at 60% to Mr Pate, reducing damages accordingly