Oliver v Brown & Root McDermott Fabricators Ltd (t/a Barmac) [1999] ScotCS 74 (12 March 1999)

Oliver v Brown & Root McDermott Fabricators Ltd (t/a Barmac) [1999] ScotCS 74 (12 March 1999)

The defenders were negligent in assigning the pursuer, who lacked proper training and experience, to perform burning work on a large steel structure. An experienced burner would not have placed himself in the dangerous position from which the pursuer fell. The accident was caused by the pursuer's inexperience, for which the defenders were responsible. The statutory case failed as the regulations did not apply to work carried out in a factory. There was no contributory negligence as the pursuer's lack of experience prevented him from appreciating the danger.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 74
Parties
Pursuer: Brian John Oliver; Defenders: Brown & Root McDermott Fabricators Limited (t/a Barmac)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Damages, Contributory Negligence
Tort Employment Law Occupational Health and Safety Employer's Liability Negligence Workplace Safety Statutory Duty Damages +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian John Oliver

Pursuer

Brown & Root McDermott Fabricators Limited (t/a Barmac)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent in assigning the pursuer to burning work for which he was not qualified or trained
  2. 2 Whether the accident was caused by the pursuer's lack of experience and training
  3. 3 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under the Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were negligent in assigning the pursuer, who lacked proper training and experience, to perform burning work on a large steel structure. An experienced burner would not have placed himself in the dangerous position from which the pursuer fell. The accident was caused by the pursuer's inexperience, for which the defenders were responsible. The statutory case failed as the regulations did not apply to work carried out in a factory. There was no contributory negligence as the pursuer's lack of experience prevented him from appreciating the danger.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Decree granted in favour of the pursuer for £40,065
  • Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained in part against Article 4 of the condescendence