Hunter & Ors v. Murray & Ors [2002] ScotCS 104 (11th April, 2002)

Hunter & Ors v. Murray & Ors [2002] ScotCS 104 (11th April, 2002)

Substantial justice requires allowing alternative factual cases where the pursuer lacks direct knowledge, especially in fatal accidents. Statutory duties under the 1992 Regulations require control of equipment, not just premises. Lack of training averments are irrelevant unless causally linked to the accident. Cases against certain defenders are irrelevant where no control or employment is averred.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 104
Parties
Pursuers: Margaret Hunter and Others; Defenders: William Murray and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas and Relevancy of Pleadings)
Outcome
Partial dismissal and allowance of proof before answer
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer's Liability, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, Common Law Negligence, Statutory Duties, Alternative Pleadings
Tort Employment Law Health and Safety Vicarious Liability Employer's Liability Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 Common Law Negligence Statutory Duties +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Hunter and Others

Pursuers

William Murray and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/employer's Liability) / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas and Relevancy of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuers can plead alternative factual cases based on their own and defenders' averments
  2. 2 Whether statutory duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 apply to non-employers with control of premises or equipment
  3. 3 Whether averments of lack of training under Regulation 9[1] are relevant without specific linkage to the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Substantial justice requires allowing alternative factual cases where the pursuer lacks direct knowledge, especially in fatal accidents. Statutory duties under the 1992 Regulations require control of equipment, not just premises. Lack of training averments are irrelevant unless causally linked to the accident. Cases against certain defenders are irrelevant where no control or employment is averred.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal and allowance of proof before answer

Orders

  • Repel second and third defenders' second plea in law
  • Sustain second and third defenders' third plea in law (exclude vicarious liability averments against them for first defender)