Mcdougall v. Gordon Spiers (t/a John Duncam Removals) [2002] ScotCS 105 (11th April, 2002)

Mcdougall v. Gordon Spiers (t/a John Duncam Removals) [2002] ScotCS 105 (11th April, 2002)

The pursuer's averments, taken at face value, sufficiently disclose a foreseeable risk of injury arising from the manual handling operation due to the combination of the task, environment, and restricted space. This is enough to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 105
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Purves McDougall; Defender: Gordon Spiers trading as John Duncan Removals
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
proof before answer allowed, all pleas standing
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations, Employer's Liability, Foreseeable Risk of Injury, Pleadings Sufficiency
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Manual Handling Operations Employer's Liability Foreseeable Risk of Injury Pleadings Sufficiency

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Purves McDougall

Pursuer

Gordon Spiers trading as John Duncan Removals

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Debate on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether there was a foreseeable risk of injury in the manual handling operation

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, taken at face value, sufficiently disclose a foreseeable risk of injury arising from the manual handling operation due to the combination of the task, environment, and restricted space. This is enough to allow the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

proof before answer allowed, all pleas standing

Orders

  • Case to proceed to proof before answer.