Stewart v Matalan Retail Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_167 (20 October 2006)

Stewart v Matalan Retail Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_167 (20 October 2006)

The defenders were not in breach of statutory duty or common law duty. The stand was in its proper place, the accident was unforeseeable, and a window in the door would not have prevented the accident. The pursuer failed to prove causation or foreseeability, and the defenders satisfied all relevant duties.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_167
Parties
Pursuer: Moira Stewart; Defender: Matalan Retail Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
defenders assoilzied (absolvitor granted)
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Common Law Negligence, Causation, Foreseeability
Tort Occupiers Liability Health and Safety Workplace Safety Statutory Duty Common Law Negligence Causation Foreseeability

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moira Stewart

Pursuer

Matalan Retail Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached their duty under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960
  3. 3 Whether the accident was foreseeable and caused by any fault of the defenders

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were not in breach of statutory duty or common law duty. The stand was in its proper place, the accident was unforeseeable, and a window in the door would not have prevented the accident. The pursuer failed to prove causation or foreseeability, and the defenders satisfied all relevant duties.

Court Disposition

defenders assoilzied (absolvitor granted)

Orders

  • refusal of pursuer's claim
  • no damages awarded