McKnight v Corus Construction [2006] ScotCS CSOH_116 (01 August 2006)

McKnight v Corus Construction [2006] ScotCS CSOH_116 (01 August 2006)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he sustained the accident alleged or that any breach of Regulation 4(1) or (2) occurred. The evidence showed that difficulties with pin removal were due to inexperience and not attributable to heat or unsuitable equipment. The defenders had carried out a proper risk assessment and could not reasonably foresee risk of injury from the use of the metal bar when the safe system of work was followed.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_116
Parties
Pursuer: Paul McKnight; Defender: Corus Construction
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defenders' motion for absolvitor granted; pursuer's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Risk Assessment, Suitability of Work Equipment
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Workplace Injury Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Risk Assessment Suitability of Work Equipment

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul McKnight

Pursuer

Corus Construction

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer sustained an accident at work as alleged
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached Regulation 4(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  3. 3 Whether the metal bar provided was suitable work equipment

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he sustained the accident alleged or that any breach of Regulation 4(1) or (2) occurred. The evidence showed that difficulties with pin removal were due to inexperience and not attributable to heat or unsuitable equipment. The defenders had carried out a proper risk assessment and could not reasonably foresee risk of injury from the use of the metal bar when the safe system of work was followed.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion for absolvitor granted; pursuer's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Absolvitor pronounced in favour of defenders
  • Pursuer found liable in expenses of the cause