Leonard v The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority [2014] ScotCS CSOH_38 (25 February 2014)

Leonard v The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority [2014] ScotCS CSOH_38 (25 February 2014)

The pursuer failed to prove the circumstances and mechanism of the accident on the balance of probabilities, and in any event, the defenders owed no duty to protect against the obvious risks presented by the path, which was constructed to accepted standards and did not present any special or unusual hazard.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_38
Parties
Pursuer: Michael Leonard; Defender: The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof on Liability
Outcome
action dismissed; defenders assoilzied
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Obvious Dangers, Public Paths, Standard of Care, Personal Injury
Tort Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Obvious Dangers Public Paths Standard of Care Personal Injury

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Leonard

Pursuer

The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their duty of care under common law and section 2(1) of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of the accident were proved on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the path presented an obvious danger for which no duty arises

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove the circumstances and mechanism of the accident on the balance of probabilities, and in any event, the defenders owed no duty to protect against the obvious risks presented by the path, which was constructed to accepted standards and did not present any special or unusual hazard.

Court Disposition

action dismissed; defenders assoilzied

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons.