Stevenson v. Morrison Construction Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_91 (08 July 2005)

Stevenson v. Morrison Construction Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_91 (08 July 2005)

The pursuer failed to plead relevant facts and circumstances capable of supporting the existence of the alleged duties of care. There was no basis for imposing on the employer a duty to implement additional safety measures or alternative access routes at a public AOCL crossing, as the crossing was a familiar, well-marked public hazard and the pursuer was fully aware of the risks. In the absence of special circumstances or established practice, no relevant duty of care arose, and the action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_91
Parties
Pursuer: John Stevenson; First Defender: Morrison Construction Limited; Second Defender (assoilzied): Railtrack plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/negligence / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Pleadings
Outcome
Action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Duties of Care on Public Roads, Workplace Safety, Proof Before Answer
Tort Employment Law Employer's Liability Negligence Duties of Care on Public Roads Workplace Safety Proof Before Answer

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Stevenson

Pursuer

Morrison Construction Limited

First Defender

Railtrack plc

Second Defender (assoilzied)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/negligence / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer owed a duty of care to the employee in respect of safety at a public AOCL railway crossing used during employment
  2. 2 Whether the employer was negligent in failing to implement additional safety measures or alternative access routes
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case in law against the employer

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to plead relevant facts and circumstances capable of supporting the existence of the alleged duties of care. There was no basis for imposing on the employer a duty to implement additional safety measures or alternative access routes at a public AOCL crossing, as the crossing was a familiar, well-marked public hazard and the pursuer was fully aware of the risks. In the absence of special circumstances or established practice, no relevant duty of care arose, and the action was dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • Sustained first plea-in-law for the first defenders
  • Dismissed the action