Dawson v Page [2013] ScotCS CSIH_24 (03 April 2013)

Dawson v Page [2013] ScotCS CSIH_24 (03 April 2013)

The defender was not at fault under section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 because the wet plank, if a danger, was obvious and the risk was low. No further precautions (warning or exclusion) were required. The accident was not caused by fault of the defender, and the reclaiming motion fails.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_24
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: John Dawson; Defender and Respondent: Ruth Page
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Reasonable Foreseeability, Statutory Interpretation, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers Liability Duty of Care Reasonable Foreseeability Statutory Interpretation Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Injuria

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dawson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Ruth Page

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty of care under section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 for injury sustained by the pursuer slipping on a wet plank.
  2. 2 Whether the premises presented a relevant danger under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether reasonable precautions (warning or exclusion) were required.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender was not at fault under section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 because the wet plank, if a danger, was obvious and the risk was low. No further precautions (warning or exclusion) were required. The accident was not caused by fault of the defender, and the reclaiming motion fails.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to pursuer.
  • Defender absolved of liability.