Rankin (AP) v Jack (t/a Lochill Equestrian Centre) [2011] ScotCS CSIH_64 (11 October 2011)

Rankin (AP) v Jack (t/a Lochill Equestrian Centre) [2011] ScotCS CSIH_64 (11 October 2011)

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, having seen and heard the witnesses, to prefer the evidence that the parking brake was not applied and to find that the pursuer had not proved his case on the balance of probabilities. The appellate court found no error in the Lord Ordinary's assessment of credibility and reliability and refused to interfere with the findings.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_64
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Ian McCalman Rankin (A.P.); Defender and Respondent: John Jack trading as Lochill Equestrian Centre
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reparation / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Decision of Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of assoilzieing (absolving) the defender affirmed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Safe System of Work, Burden of Proof, Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Employer's Liability Safe System of Work Burden of Proof Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 +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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian McCalman Rankin (A.P.)

Pursuer and Reclaimer

John Jack trading as Lochill Equestrian Centre

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reparation / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Decision of Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer proved on the balance of probabilities that the accident was caused by the defender's breach of duty
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer applied the tractor parking brake before the accident
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in assessing credibility and reliability of witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was entitled, having seen and heard the witnesses, to prefer the evidence that the parking brake was not applied and to find that the pursuer had not proved his case on the balance of probabilities. The appellate court found no error in the Lord Ordinary's assessment of credibility and reliability and refused to interfere with the findings.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of assoilzieing (absolving) the defender affirmed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • All questions of expenses reserved