McKeown v Inverclyde Council [2013] ScotCS CSOH_141 (22 August 2013)

McKeown v Inverclyde Council [2013] ScotCS CSOH_141 (22 August 2013)

The defenders were in breach of regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 because, although they devised a reasonable system for gritting, they failed to implement or maintain it. The pursuer's accident occurred as alleged, and the defenders did not show it was not reasonably practicable to keep the fire escape steps free from ice. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_141
Parties
Pursuer: Stephen McKeown; Defender: Inverclyde Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Statutory Duty, Slip and Fall, Reasonably Practicable, Contributory Negligence
Personal Injury Employment Law Health and Safety Workplace Safety Statutory Duty Slip and Fall Reasonably Practicable Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Stephen McKeown

Pursuer

Inverclyde Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer sustained an accident at work as alleged
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached statutory duty under regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  3. 3 Whether it was reasonably practicable for the defenders to keep the fire escape steps free of ice

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were in breach of regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 because, although they devised a reasonable system for gritting, they failed to implement or maintain it. The pursuer's accident occurred as alleged, and the defenders did not show it was not reasonably practicable to keep the fire escape steps free from ice. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • Defenders liable to pursuer in the sum of £30,000 inclusive of interest to 13 November 2012 and net of recoupable benefits.
  • Interest payable up to the date of judgment.