ANDREW DUNNACHIE v. CRAIG GARDNER AND ANOTHER [2011] ScotSC 193 (13 December 2011)

ANDREW DUNNACHIE v. CRAIG GARDNER AND ANOTHER [2011] ScotSC 193 (13 December 2011)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Gardner was negligent in supplying or permitting use of the stepladders. There was no evidence Mr Gardner knew or ought to have known of any defect. The collapse was due to a latent defect not reasonably detectable. The defenders are absolved from liability.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 193
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Dunnachie; Defender: Craig David Gardner; Defender: Lynn Smith
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (common Law Negligence) / Liability Proof (judgment on Liability Only)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave of the writ; pursuer's claim dismissed; expenses reserved for later determination.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Latent Defect, Burden of Proof
Tort Personal Injury Scottish Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Latent Defect Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Andrew Dunnachie

Pursuer

Craig David Gardner

Defender

Lynn Smith

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (common Law Negligence) / Liability Proof (judgment on Liability Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Gardner was negligent in supplying or permitting use of the stepladders by the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are liable for injuries suffered by the pursuer due to collapse of the stepladders

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Mr Gardner was negligent in supplying or permitting use of the stepladders. There was no evidence Mr Gardner knew or ought to have known of any defect. The collapse was due to a latent defect not reasonably detectable. The defenders are absolved from liability.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave of the writ; pursuer's claim dismissed; expenses reserved for later determination.

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the crave of the writ
  • Question of expenses reserved; hearing fixed for parties to be heard on expenses