SANDY HARROWER v. CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL [2013] ScotSC 44 (26 June 2013)

SANDY HARROWER v. CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL [2013] ScotSC 44 (26 June 2013)

The defenders were not in breach of regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 because there was no reasonably practicable method of guarding the fourth edge of the stairs from which the pursuer fell. The risk of injury was very low, the hazard was minor, and the cost, delay, and impracticality of proposed safety measures outweighed the minimal risk. The defenders had provided adequate training and risk assessment, and no industry practice supported the use of guardrails or harnesses in such circumstances.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 44
Parties
Pursuer: Sandy Harrower; Defender: Clackmannanshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders
Legal Topics
Work at Height, Employer's Duty of Care, Reasonable Practicability, Risk Assessment, Regulation 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Work at Height Employer's Duty of Care Reasonable Practicability Risk Assessment Regulation 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandy Harrower

Pursuer

Clackmannanshire Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their duty under regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent the pursuer falling from height
  2. 2 Whether any reasonably practicable measures could have prevented the pursuer's fall and injury

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were not in breach of regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 because there was no reasonably practicable method of guarding the fourth edge of the stairs from which the pursuer fell. The risk of injury was very low, the hazard was minor, and the cost, delay, and impracticality of proposed safety measures outweighed the minimal risk. The defenders had provided adequate training and risk assessment, and no industry practice supported the use of guardrails or harnesses in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders

Orders

  • Pursuer found liable to defenders in expenses
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to auditor to tax and report