Hobbin v Vertical Descents Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSIH_1 (15 January 2013)

Hobbin v Vertical Descents Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSIH_1 (15 January 2013)

The appeal fails because the Lord Ordinary was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defenders' instructor over that of the pursuer and her witness. The precise location of the accident was not critical to the issue of fault, and the defenders' failure to put their case on certain factual matters did not undermine the reliability of their evidence. There was no basis to disturb the Lord Ordinary's assessment of credibility and reliability.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer & Reclaimer: Sara Hobbin; Defenders & Respondents: Vertical Descents Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Reclaiming Motion / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Decision of Lord Ordinary Granting Absolvitor
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Standard of Care, Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses, Failure to Cross Examine, Assessment of Evidence
Personal Injury Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Standard of Care Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses Failure to Cross Examine Assessment of Evidence

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Hobbin

Pursuer & Reclaimer

Vertical Descents Ltd

Defenders & Respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Reclaiming Motion / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Decision of Lord Ordinary Granting Absolvitor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were at fault for the pursuer's injury during a canyoning activity
  2. 2 Whether the instructor directed the pursuer to stand on a dangerous rock
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the Lord Ordinary was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defenders' instructor over that of the pursuer and her witness. The precise location of the accident was not critical to the issue of fault, and the defenders' failure to put their case on certain factual matters did not undermine the reliability of their evidence. There was no basis to disturb the Lord Ordinary's assessment of credibility and reliability.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • Decision of Lord Ordinary granting absolvitor affirmed