Johnstone v Amec Construction Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_57 (29 June 2010)

Johnstone v Amec Construction Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_57 (29 June 2010)

The court held that the barrier fence was not maintained in an efficient state or suitable for its purpose, as required by Regulations 4 and 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The fact that the fence was blown over and created a tripping hazard established breaches of both regulations. The risk of such an accident was reasonably foreseeable. The accident was caused or materially contributed to by these breaches, but the pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_57
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: James Johnstone; Defenders and Respondents: Amec Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court (personal Injury) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sheriff’s decision recalled. Decree granted for pursuer with deduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Accidents
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 Contributory Negligence Workplace Accidents

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Johnstone

Pursuer and Appellant

Amec Construction Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court (personal Injury) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the barrier fence was maintained in an efficient state as required by Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the barrier fence was suitable for its purpose under Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  3. 3 Whether the accident was caused or materially contributed to by breaches of these regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the barrier fence was not maintained in an efficient state or suitable for its purpose, as required by Regulations 4 and 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The fact that the fence was blown over and created a tripping hazard established breaches of both regulations. The risk of such an accident was reasonably foreseeable. The accident was caused or materially contributed to by these breaches, but the pursuer was contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sheriff’s decision recalled. Decree granted for pursuer with deduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the sheriff of 2 April 2009
  • Repel the first to fourth pleas-in-law for the defenders