Black v Wrangler (UK) Ltd [2000] ScotCS 67 (14 March 2000)

The pursuer's averments, including complaints about equipment and workload, and reliance on industry documents, are sufficient for proof before answer. The statutory case under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 is relevant, and causation is a matter for proof.

Citation: [2000] ScotCS 67
Parties: Pursuer: Mary Ann Black; Defender: Wrangler (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 14 March 2000
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury / Interlocutory (debate on Relevancy and Specification, Proof Before Answer Granted)
Outcome: Proof before answer allowed on pursuer's averments.
Legal Topics: Manual Handling, Employer's Duty of Care, Negligence, Statutory Breach, Causation

Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Manual Handling Employer's Duty of Care Negligence Statutory Breach Causation

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 1

Parties

Mary Ann Black

Pursuer

Wrangler (UK) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Interlocutory (debate on Relevancy and Specification, Proof Before Answer Granted)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to establish employer's liability for back injury under common law and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
2 Whether injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer
3 Adequacy of specification regarding complaints and fault

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on pursuer's averments.

Orders

Proof before answer granted; pursuer's common law and statutory cases to proceed to inquiry.