Jarrett v. Kirkcaldy Ice Rink [2009] ScotSC 17 (02 July 2009)

Jarrett v. Kirkcaldy Ice Rink [2009] ScotSC 17 (02 July 2009)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defenders were negligent or in breach of statutory duty. The defenders had a reasonable system for securing and inspecting the netting, and there was no evidence as to how or when the netting came loose or that the defenders should have discovered and remedied the hazard before the accident. The statutory duty is one of reasonableness, not strict liability, and the pursuer did not establish that the defenders failed to take reasonable care.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 17
Parties
Pursuer: Caroline Jarrett (as legal representative of Megan Jarrett); Defender: Kirkcaldy Ice Rink
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/delict (civil) / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave of the initial writ; pursuer's case dismissed.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Duty of Care, Negligence, Reasonableness of Safety Measures, Statutory Duty, Inspection Systems
Tort/delict Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Duty of Care Negligence Reasonableness of Safety Measures Statutory Duty +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Jarrett (as legal representative of Megan Jarrett)

Pursuer

Kirkcaldy Ice Rink

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/delict (civil) / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were negligent at common law in failing to prevent a foreseeable tripping hazard on the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached their statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 to take reasonable care to prevent injury to users of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defenders were negligent or in breach of statutory duty. The defenders had a reasonable system for securing and inspecting the netting, and there was no evidence as to how or when the netting came loose or that the defenders should have discovered and remedied the hazard before the accident. The statutory duty is one of reasonableness, not strict liability, and the pursuer did not establish that the defenders failed to take reasonable care.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave of the initial writ; pursuer's case dismissed.

Orders

  • Repels the pursuer's First and Second Pleas-in-Law.
  • Sustains the defenders' Second and Third Pleas-in-Law.