McFarlane v. Ferguson Shipbuilders [2004] ScotCS 68 (16 March 2004)

McFarlane v. Ferguson Shipbuilders [2004] ScotCS 68 (16 March 2004)

The pursuer failed to prove he was required to use excessive force in his work or that his symptoms after October 2001 were caused or exacerbated by his work. There was no breach of common law or statutory duty, and causation was not established. The claim fails on both liability and causation.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 68
Parties
Pursuer: William McFarlane; Defenders: Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (damages for Exacerbation of Pre Existing Tennis Elbow) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Evidence)
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor (defenders assoilzied; claim dismissed)
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Common Law Negligence, Causation, Quantum of Damages
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Employer's Liability Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Common Law Negligence Causation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William McFarlane

Pursuer

Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (damages for Exacerbation of Pre Existing Tennis Elbow) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was required to use excessive force in his work causing or exacerbating tennis elbow
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached their common law duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove he was required to use excessive force in his work or that his symptoms after October 2001 were caused or exacerbated by his work. There was no breach of common law or statutory duty, and causation was not established. The claim fails on both liability and causation.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor (defenders assoilzied; claim dismissed)

Orders

  • Defenders' second and third pleas-in-law sustained
  • Decree of absolvitor pronounced