Fegan v. The Highland Council [2006] ScotSC 2 (03 February 2006)

Fegan v. The Highland Council [2006] ScotSC 2 (03 February 2006)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the mechanism and cause of her fall and thus failed to establish causation. There is no duty on the defenders to protect against the natural and obvious danger of the cliff edge. Even if such a duty existed, the defenders had taken reasonable steps by fencing more dangerous areas and balancing public amenity with safety. The case was not exceptional to warrant departure from established principles.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 2
Parties
Pursuer: Jacqueline Laura Fegan; Defender: The Highland Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor in favour of defenders with expenses as taxed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Natural Hazards, Public Liability, Standard of Care, Factual Causation
Tort Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Natural Hazards Public Liability Standard of Care Factual Causation

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Laura Fegan

Pursuer

The Highland Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuer in respect of the natural hazard presented by the cliff edge near Victoria Walk.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached any duty under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer proved the mechanism and cause of her accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the mechanism and cause of her fall and thus failed to establish causation. There is no duty on the defenders to protect against the natural and obvious danger of the cliff edge. Even if such a duty existed, the defenders had taken reasonable steps by fencing more dangerous areas and balancing public amenity with safety. The case was not exceptional to warrant departure from established principles.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor in favour of defenders with expenses as taxed.

Orders

  • Repels the pursuer's pleas-in-law Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
  • Upholds the defenders' pleas-in-law 5 and 6.