MacKenzie v. Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd [2007] ScotSC 14 (17 April 2007)

MacKenzie v. Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd [2007] ScotSC 14 (17 April 2007)

The defenders did not breach their common law duty of care, as a reasonable system for gritting was in place and the pursuer was aware of it. However, the defenders breached their statutory duty under Regulation 12(3) of the 1992 Regulations by failing to provide adequate instruction or training for the first employee arriving at the site to protect themselves from slipping on untreated ice. The pursuer was contributorily negligent for failing to take reasonable care for her own safety, and damages were reduced accordingly.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 14
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs. Isabelle Mackenzie; Defender: Co-Operative Group (CWS) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Defenders found liable for breach of statutory duty; damages awarded to pursuer subject to reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Tort Law Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Isabelle Mackenzie

Pursuer

Co-Operative Group (CWS) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their common law duty of care to the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders did not breach their common law duty of care, as a reasonable system for gritting was in place and the pursuer was aware of it. However, the defenders breached their statutory duty under Regulation 12(3) of the 1992 Regulations by failing to provide adequate instruction or training for the first employee arriving at the site to protect themselves from slipping on untreated ice. The pursuer was contributorily negligent for failing to take reasonable care for her own safety, and damages were reduced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Defenders found liable for breach of statutory duty; damages awarded to pursuer subject to reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Decree against the defenders for payment to the pursuer of £4462.80 with interest at 8% per annum from 25 October 2004 until payment.
  • Certification of Mr. Sean Kelly as a skilled witness.