Kelly v Riverside Inverclyde (Property Holdings) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_86 (16 May 2014)

Kelly v Riverside Inverclyde (Property Holdings) Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSOH_86 (16 May 2014)

The pursuer failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the seagull which caused her injury came from the defenders' premises. There was insufficient evidence to attribute knowledge of prior incidents to the defenders or to establish reasonable foreseeability. The statutory duties under the 1992 Regulations did not apply in the absence of a proven link between the hazard and the defenders' premises. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_86
Parties
Pursuer: Cathie Kelly; Defender: Riverside Inverclyde (Property Holdings) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Proof Restricted to Liability Only
Outcome
action dismissed; decree of absolvitor pronounced
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Workplace Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Burden of Proof, Statutory Interpretation
Tort Statutory Liability Employment Law Occupiers' Liability Workplace Health and Safety Personal Injury Burden of Proof Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Cathie Kelly

Pursuer

Riverside Inverclyde (Property Holdings) Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Proof Restricted to Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were liable for the pursuer's injury under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 and/or common law
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under regulations 5 and 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer established on the balance of probabilities that the seagull causing her injury came from the defenders' premises

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the seagull which caused her injury came from the defenders' premises. There was insufficient evidence to attribute knowledge of prior incidents to the defenders or to establish reasonable foreseeability. The statutory duties under the 1992 Regulations did not apply in the absence of a proven link between the hazard and the defenders' premises. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Court Disposition

action dismissed; decree of absolvitor pronounced

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders
  • All questions of expenses reserved