Hodgkinson v Renfrewshire Council [2011] ScotCS CSOH_142 (23 August 2011)

Hodgkinson v Renfrewshire Council [2011] ScotCS CSOH_142 (23 August 2011)

The defenders breached their statutory duties by failing to carry out a risk assessment and by having a protruding lug at eye level, which posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury. The gate and lug were not suitably constructed or adapted for safe use. The pursuer's injury was caused by contact with the lug, and the risk was more than a mere possibility. No contributory negligence was established.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_142
Parties
Pursuer: Heather Hodgkinson; Defender: Renfrewshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof on Liability
Outcome
judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Work Equipment Regulations, Risk Assessment, Liability for Workplace Injury
Employment Law Health and Safety Personal Injury Workplace Safety Work Equipment Regulations Risk Assessment Liability for Workplace Injury

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Hodgkinson

Pursuer

Renfrewshire Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached statutory duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to ensure the gate and lug were suitably constructed and risk assessed
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's injury was caused by the defenders' breach of duty
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence applies

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders breached their statutory duties by failing to carry out a risk assessment and by having a protruding lug at eye level, which posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury. The gate and lug were not suitably constructed or adapted for safe use. The pursuer's injury was caused by contact with the lug, and the risk was more than a mere possibility. No contributory negligence was established.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • Defenders to pay agreed damages of £12,858 with interest
  • Expenses to follow success