Thomson v. Govan [A2712_01.html] ScotCS 1 [2002] ScotCS 134 (10th May, 2002)

Thomson v. Govan [A2712_01.html] ScotCS 1 [2002] ScotCS 134 (10th May, 2002)

The court held that the Lord Ordinary erred in attaching excessive weight to the opinion evidence of Mr Cox and in failing to give due consideration to the supporting circumstances and absence of a credible alternative explanation. The pursuer's evidence, corroborated by undisputed facts, was sufficient to prove that the accident was caused by the defenders' breach of Regulation 17(1), entitling him to reparation.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 134
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Arthur Black Thomson; Defenders and Respondents: Kvaerner Govan Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Proof
Outcome
reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; decree for pursuer pronounced
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Accident, Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Regulations 1960, Standard of Proof, Assessment of Witness Credibility
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Employer's Liability Workplace Accident Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Regulations 1960 Standard of Proof Assessment of Witness Credibility

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Black Thomson

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Kvaerner Govan Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Personal Injury Action / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer proved that his accident was caused by stepping on a plank which broke due to the defenders' breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Regulations 1960
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in rejecting the pursuer's evidence as unreliable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Lord Ordinary erred in attaching excessive weight to the opinion evidence of Mr Cox and in failing to give due consideration to the supporting circumstances and absence of a credible alternative explanation. The pursuer's evidence, corroborated by undisputed facts, was sufficient to prove that the accident was caused by the defenders' breach of Regulation 17(1), entitling him to reparation.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; decree for pursuer pronounced

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 16 January 1998
  • Sustain the pursuer's first plea-in-law