JON WILLIAM DAVIE AGAINST POWERTEAM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (UK) LTD AND ANOTHER [2023] ScotCS CSOH_94 (19 December 2023)

JON WILLIAM DAVIE AGAINST POWERTEAM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (UK) LTD AND ANOTHER [2023] ScotCS CSOH_94 (19 December 2023)

The pursuer's averments, even if proved, cannot establish that the defenders ought to have reasonably foreseen the risk of an adult climbing onto the portacabin roof, nor that the scope of duty extended to providing an effective barrier at the stairway. The danger was obvious, created by the pursuer's own deliberate actions, and there was no history of similar incidents or notice to the defenders. The action is bound to fail and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_94
Parties
Pursuer: Jon William Davie; First Defender: Powerteam Electrical Services (UK) Limited; Second Defender: Vinci Energies UK Holding Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (damages for Catastrophic Injury) / Procedure Roll (debate) on Joint Motions for Dismissal
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Scope of Duty, Allurement, Barriers and Site Security
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 Duty of Care Foreseeability Scope of Duty Allurement +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon William Davie

Pursuer

Powerteam Electrical Services (UK) Limited

First Defender

Vinci Energies UK Holding Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (damages for Catastrophic Injury) / Procedure Roll (debate) on Joint Motions for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 to prevent access to the portacabin roof
  2. 2 Whether the risk of an adult climbing onto the portacabin roof was reasonably foreseeable
  3. 3 Whether the scope of duty extended to providing an effective barrier at the stairway

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, even if proved, cannot establish that the defenders ought to have reasonably foreseen the risk of an adult climbing onto the portacabin roof, nor that the scope of duty extended to providing an effective barrier at the stairway. The danger was obvious, created by the pursuer's own deliberate actions, and there was no history of similar incidents or notice to the defenders. The action is bound to fail and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • First pleas-in-law for each defender sustained
  • Action dismissed