Taylor v. City of Glasgow Council [2002] ScotCS 351 (30 April 2002)

Taylor v. City of Glasgow Council [2002] ScotCS 351 (30 April 2002)

A pursuer who avers that he was injured during a manual handling operation involving a risk of injury pleads a relevant case under Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. There is no requirement to aver or prove that the employer foresaw or could have foreseen the possibility of injury arising from the particular task. The employer may avoid liability only by pleading and proving that avoidance of the manual handling operation was not reasonably practicable. The Temporary Judge erred in requiring the pursuer to specify a foreseeable risk in the particular operation and in dismissing the action for lack of specification.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 351
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: David Taylor; Defenders and Respondents: City of Glasgow Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Outer House to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Employer's Duty to Avoid Manual Handling Risks, Foreseeability of Risk, Interpretation of Health and Safety Regulations, Burden of Proof in Statutory Duties
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Employer's Duty to Avoid Manual Handling Risks Foreseeability of Risk Interpretation of Health and Safety Regulations Burden of Proof in Statutory Duties

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Taylor

Pursuer and Reclaimer

City of Glasgow Council

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Outer House to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 require proof of a foreseeable risk of injury for employer liability?
  2. 2 Is it sufficient for an employee to plead injury during a manual handling operation, or must the risk be particularised and foreseeable?
  3. 3 Does the employer's duty under Regulation 4(1)(a) apply to general categories of manual handling or only to specific tasks?

Ratio Decidendi

A pursuer who avers that he was injured during a manual handling operation involving a risk of injury pleads a relevant case under Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. There is no requirement to aver or prove that the employer foresaw or could have foreseen the possibility of injury arising from the particular task. The employer may avoid liability only by pleading and proving that avoidance of the manual handling operation was not reasonably practicable. The Temporary Judge erred in requiring the pursuer to specify a foreseeable risk in the particular operation and in dismissing the action for lack of specification.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Temporary Judge recalled; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Temporary Judge dismissing the cause.
  • Allow a proof before answer.