Pearson v. J Ray Mcdermott Diving International Inc [2008] ScotCS CSIH_39 (13 June 2008)

Pearson v. J Ray Mcdermott Diving International Inc [2008] ScotCS CSIH_39 (13 June 2008)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the evidence, that the supervisor acted negligently or that any instruction given was foreseeably likely to cause injury. There was no evidence of urgency, improper instruction, or unsafe system of work. The pursuer's evidence was inconsistent and not corroborated. No reasonable inference of fault could be drawn in the absence of supporting evidence.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSIH_39
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Alan Pearson; Defenders and Respondents: J Ray McDermott Diving International Inc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; decision of Lord Ordinary affirmed; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Negligence, Standard of Care, Causation
Personal Injury Employment Law Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Negligence Standard of Care Causation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Pearson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

J Ray McDermott Diving International Inc

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the diving supervisor failed in his duty of care by instructing the pursuer to pull on a snagged umbilical, thereby causing injury
  2. 2 Whether the system of work was inherently unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's evidence was credible and reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the evidence, that the supervisor acted negligently or that any instruction given was foreseeably likely to cause injury. There was no evidence of urgency, improper instruction, or unsafe system of work. The pursuer's evidence was inconsistent and not corroborated. No reasonable inference of fault could be drawn in the absence of supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; decision of Lord Ordinary affirmed; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • Decree of absolvitor for defenders