Strange v Wincanton Logistics Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_65a (26 October 2011)

Strange v Wincanton Logistics Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_65a (26 October 2011)

The court held that the employer had discharged the onus of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid manual handling or to further reduce the risk by providing a forklift or a second man. The risk was small or negligible, and the cost, inconvenience, and increased risk of alternative methods were disproportionate. The sheriff's findings on liability, causation, and damages were supported by sufficient evidence and proper analysis. The appeal was refused.

Citation
[2011] CSIH 65A
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: John Strange; Defenders and Respondents: Wincanton Logistics Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal (reparation for Workplace Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's decision affirmed; respondents assoilzied (absolved) from liability.
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Breach of Statutory Duty, Workplace Injury, Reasonably Practicable Standard, Risk Assessment, Damages for Personal Injury
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Breach of Statutory Duty Workplace Injury Reasonably Practicable Standard Risk 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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Strange

Pursuer and Appellant

Wincanton Logistics Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal (reparation for Workplace Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached statutory duties under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 by failing to avoid or sufficiently reduce the risk of manual handling operations causing injury
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonably practicable for the employer to avoid manual handling or further reduce risk by providing mechanical or additional manual assistance
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in findings on medical causation and quantification of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the employer had discharged the onus of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid manual handling or to further reduce the risk by providing a forklift or a second man. The risk was small or negligible, and the cost, inconvenience, and increased risk of alternative methods were disproportionate. The sheriff's findings on liability, causation, and damages were supported by sufficient evidence and proper analysis. The appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's decision affirmed; respondents assoilzied (absolved) from liability.

Orders

  • Refusal of appeal
  • Affirmation of sheriff's interlocutor of 2 June 2010