Jack McCormack against SportsDirect.com Fitness LTD (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 15 (29 May 2025)

Jack McCormack against SportsDirect.com Fitness LTD (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 15 (29 May 2025)

The appeal was allowed because the sheriff erred in applying res ipsa loquitur without establishing that the appellant had exclusive control over the weight plate. Exclusive control over the premises does not equate to exclusive control over individual items accessible to third parties. Without exclusive control, the inference of negligence required by the maxim cannot be drawn.

Citation
[2025] SACCIV 15
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Jack McCormack; Defender and Appellant: SportsDirect.com Fitness Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Sheriff Appeal Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the appellant.
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Negligence, Exclusive Control, Inference of Negligence, Premises Liability
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Res Ipsa Loquitur Negligence Exclusive Control Inference of Negligence Premises Liability

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack McCormack

Pursuer and Respondent

SportsDirect.com Fitness Limited

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Sheriff Appeal Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to the circumstances of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had exclusive management and control over the weight plate causing injury
  3. 3 Whether sufficient evidence existed to infer negligence by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the sheriff erred in applying res ipsa loquitur without establishing that the appellant had exclusive control over the weight plate. Exclusive control over the premises does not equate to exclusive control over individual items accessible to third parties. Without exclusive control, the inference of negligence required by the maxim cannot be drawn.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • Recall the sheriff's interlocutor of 12 September 2024.
  • Grant decree of absolvitor in favour of the appellant.