BURT HONEYMAN AGAINST BABCOCK DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY Ltd [2017] ScotSC 5 (26 January 2017)

BURT HONEYMAN AGAINST BABCOCK DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY Ltd [2017] ScotSC 5 (26 January 2017)

The pursuer failed to prove that the accident occurred as he claimed. Even if it had, the absence of a second handrail did not amount to a negligent omission, as there was no evidence of prior incidents, complaints, or that such a precaution was standard or obviously necessary. Accordingly, the defender was not liable.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 5
Parties
Pursuer: Burt Honeyman; Defender: Babcock Design and Technology Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (damages for Workplace Accident) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved of liability); pursuer's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Safety, Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Duty of Care Workplace Safety Negligence Causation Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Burt Honeyman

Pursuer

Babcock Design and Technology Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (damages for Workplace Accident) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a second handrail on a workplace stairway constituted a negligent omission by the employer
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a second handrail caused the pursuer's injury
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the accident occurred as he claimed. Even if it had, the absence of a second handrail did not amount to a negligent omission, as there was no evidence of prior incidents, complaints, or that such a precaution was standard or obviously necessary. Accordingly, the defender was not liable.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved of liability); pursuer's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the crave of the writ.
  • All questions of expenses reserved.