KATHRYN HAY v ADVANCED STAIRLIFTS (SCOTLAND) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_118 (01 August 2014)

KATHRYN HAY v ADVANCED STAIRLIFTS (SCOTLAND) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_118 (01 August 2014)

The court found that the pursuer was injured while using work equipment (expandable metre stick) in the course of her employment, that the risk of falling while using such equipment on stairs was reasonably foreseeable, and that the defenders breached their statutory duty under PUWER by failing to provide suitable equipment. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_118
Parties
Pursuer: Kathryn Hay; Defender: Advanced Stairlifts (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Work Equipment Suitability, Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Employer's Liability Work Equipment Suitability 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Hay

Pursuer

Advanced Stairlifts (Scotland) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by the defenders’ breach of statutory duty under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)
  2. 2 Whether the expandable metre stick was suitable work equipment
  3. 3 Whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer was injured while using work equipment (expandable metre stick) in the course of her employment, that the risk of falling while using such equipment on stairs was reasonably foreseeable, and that the defenders breached their statutory duty under PUWER by failing to provide suitable equipment. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defenders to pay agreed damages of £2,500 to the pursuer
  • Interest awarded at 4% for three months after the accident, then at 8% until decree