Fraser v. The Royal Mail Group [2006] ScotSC 35 (05 April 2006)

Fraser v. The Royal Mail Group [2006] ScotSC 35 (05 April 2006)

The pursuer has averred facts sufficient to constitute a manual handling operation under the 1992 Regulations, and the injuries claimed, including the elbow injury, are not too remote as they form a continuous and immediate chain of events arising from the original act. The pursuer's pleadings are relevant and should be allowed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 35
Parties
Pursuer: Ian Alexander Fraser; Defenders: The Royal Mail Group
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Remoteness, Proof Before Answer Allowed
Outcome
First plea-in-law for defenders repelled; proof before answer allowed; defenders liable for expenses of debate.
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations, Statutory Duty, Remoteness of Damage, Foreseeability, Negligence
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Manual Handling Operations Statutory Duty Remoteness of Damage Foreseeability 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Alexander Fraser

Pursuer

The Royal Mail Group

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Remoteness, Proof Before Answer Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether closing a vehicle tailgate constitutes a manual handling operation under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the injury to the pursuer's left elbow is too remote to be recoverable
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and should be allowed to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer has averred facts sufficient to constitute a manual handling operation under the 1992 Regulations, and the injuries claimed, including the elbow injury, are not too remote as they form a continuous and immediate chain of events arising from the original act. The pursuer's pleadings are relevant and should be allowed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

First plea-in-law for defenders repelled; proof before answer allowed; defenders liable for expenses of debate.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on a date to be fixed.
  • Defenders liable to pursuer in expenses occasioned by the debate.