Deans v. George Newberrys Coachbuilders [2005] ScotSC 82 (13 September 2005)

Deans v. George Newberrys Coachbuilders [2005] ScotSC 82 (13 September 2005)

The pursuer's HAVS is established but is at the lower end of the scale for damages. The evidence does not support a real risk or likelihood of loss of employability, nor a weakened position in the labour market. Apportionment for pre-defender exposure is not justified beyond a minimal amount, as the defenders'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 82
Parties
Pursuer: Mr Deans; Defender: JWR Coachbuilders Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Quantum of Damages Determination After Liability Established
Outcome
Damages awarded for solatium only; no award for loss of employability; minimal apportionment for pre-defender exposure.
Legal Topics
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs), Solatium, Loss of Employability, Apportionment of Damages, Duty of Care, Causation, Assessment of Damages
Tort Personal Injury Employment Law Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs) Solatium Loss of Employability Apportionment of Damages Duty of Care +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mr Deans

Pursuer

JWR Coachbuilders Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Quantum of Damages Determination After Liability Established

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages (solatium) for the pursuer's HAVS?
  2. 2 Is the pursuer entitled to damages for loss of employability?
  3. 3 Should damages be apportioned for non-negligent exposure prior to the defenders' employment?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's HAVS is established but is at the lower end of the scale for damages. The evidence does not support a real risk or likelihood of loss of employability, nor a weakened position in the labour market. Apportionment for pre-defender exposure is not justified beyond a minimal amount, as the defenders' breach was the material cause of the pursuer's symptoms. Solatium is assessed at £8,000, with no award for loss of employability.

Court Disposition

Damages awarded for solatium only; no award for loss of employability; minimal apportionment for pre-defender exposure.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay the pursuer £8,000 as solatium for HAVS.
  • No award for loss of employability.