Given v. James Watt College [2006] ScotCS CSOH_189 (13 December 2006)

Given v. James Watt College [2006] ScotCS CSOH_189 (13 December 2006)

The defenders were negligent at common law and in breach of the absolute statutory duty under Regulation 5(1) by failing to maintain the drinks dispensing machine in an efficient state, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual injury to the pursuer, who was a regular user of the equipment. The statutory duty applied even though the pursuer was not using the machine at the precise moment of the accident. No contributory negligence was established due to lack of evidence and failure to put the allegation to the pursuer.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_189
Parties
Pursuer: Helen Given; Defenders: James Watt College
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (workplace Accident) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Quantum)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Damages Assessment, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Damages Assessment +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Given

Pursuer

James Watt College

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (workplace Accident) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent at common law for failing to maintain safe work equipment
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were negligent at common law and in breach of the absolute statutory duty under Regulation 5(1) by failing to maintain the drinks dispensing machine in an efficient state, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual injury to the pursuer, who was a regular user of the equipment. The statutory duty applied even though the pursuer was not using the machine at the precise moment of the accident. No contributory negligence was established due to lack of evidence and failure to put the allegation to the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defenders liable in damages to the pursuer for the accident of 30 May 2003
  • Damages assessed at £60,426.86 inclusive of all interest to date