Kerr v. North Ayrshire Council [2002] ScotCS 13 (16th January, 2002)

Kerr v. North Ayrshire Council [2002] ScotCS 13 (16th January, 2002)

There was no foreseeable risk of injury in the manual handling of the Go-Pak tables as performed by the pursuer; the tables were lightweight, the method used did not involve significant bending or twisting, and the storage method followed manufacturer instructions. No risk assessment or training was required, and even if provided, would not have made a practical difference. The defenders were not in breach of statutory or common law duties.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 13
Parties
Pursuer: Helen Mullen Kerr; Defenders: North Ayrshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Quantum)
Outcome
Action dismissed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Employer's Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Workplace Injury, Training Obligations
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Employer's Duty of Care Risk Assessment Workplace Injury Training Obligations

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Mullen Kerr

Pursuer

North Ayrshire Council

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their statutory and common law duties regarding manual handling operations under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's injury was foreseeable and involved a risk requiring risk assessment and training
  3. 3 Whether the storage method of tables contributed to the risk of injury

Ratio Decidendi

There was no foreseeable risk of injury in the manual handling of the Go-Pak tables as performed by the pursuer; the tables were lightweight, the method used did not involve significant bending or twisting, and the storage method followed manufacturer instructions. No risk assessment or training was required, and even if provided, would not have made a practical difference. The defenders were not in breach of statutory or common law duties.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Sustain pleas in law 2, 3 and 4 for the defenders
  • Repel pleas in law 1 and 2 for the pursuer