Ashbridge v. Christian Salvesen Plc [2006] ScotCS CSOH_79 (18 May 2006)

Ashbridge v. Christian Salvesen Plc [2006] ScotCS CSOH_79 (18 May 2006)

The defenders were liable at common law and under PUWER and PPER for failing to provide a safe system of work, adequate means to check tank levels, and suitable protective equipment. The pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% for failing to properly check the tank before opening the sludge door, displaying wanton disregard for his own safety.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_79
Parties
Pursuer: Charles Ashbridge; Defender: Christian Salvesen Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (damages for Workplace Injury) / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Pursuer succeeds in part; defenders found liable subject to 50% contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (puwer), Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (pper), Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (coshh), Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (puwer) Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (pper) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (coshh) +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ashbridge

Pursuer

Christian Salvesen Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (damages for Workplace Injury) / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were liable at common law and under statutory regulations for injuries suffered by the pursuer at work
  2. 2 Whether the defenders failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate equipment, and protective clothing
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were liable at common law and under PUWER and PPER for failing to provide a safe system of work, adequate means to check tank levels, and suitable protective equipment. The pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% for failing to properly check the tank before opening the sludge door, displaying wanton disregard for his own safety.

Court Disposition

Pursuer succeeds in part; defenders found liable subject to 50% contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay the pursuer £6,375, being 50% of the agreed damages sum adjusted for interest.