RONALD McNAUGHTON v. MICHELIN TYRE PLC [2001] ScotSC 2 (19th January, 2001)

RONALD McNAUGHTON v. MICHELIN TYRE PLC [2001] ScotSC 2 (19th January, 2001)

The court held that the presence of the bracket did not breach Regulation 5(1) as it did not affect the efficiency, working order, or repair of the workplace. The bracket was a hazard, but the statutory duty under Regulation 5(1) was not breached by its presence. The pursuer was not entitled to reparation under the statutory duty claimed.

Citation
[2001] ScotSC 2
Parties
Pursuer: Ronald McNaughton; Defender: Michelin Tyre plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Reparation Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence
Negligence Reparation European Community Law Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald McNaughton

Pursuer

Michelin Tyre plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of a redundant bracket constituted a breach of Regulation 5(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, 1992
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was entitled to damages for personal injury under statutory duty
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the presence of the bracket did not breach Regulation 5(1) as it did not affect the efficiency, working order, or repair of the workplace. The bracket was a hazard, but the statutory duty under Regulation 5(1) was not breached by its presence. The pursuer was not entitled to reparation under the statutory duty claimed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • repels the first plea-in-law for the pursuer
  • finds it unnecessary to deal with the second plea-in-law for the pursuer