ANDREW MACLACHLAN AGAINST STRATHCLYDE PARTNERSHIP FOR TRANSPORT [2017] ScotSC 15 (24 March 2017)

ANDREW MACLACHLAN AGAINST STRATHCLYDE PARTNERSHIP FOR TRANSPORT [2017] ScotSC 15 (24 March 2017)

The defenders breached their statutory duty under regulation 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to keep the designated traffic route clear and suitable for use, thereby forcing the pursuer to divert and cross embedded rails at a hazardous angle, resulting in foreseeable injury. The defenders also breached their common law duty to provide a safe place of work. The accident was not caused by any fault of the pursuer; there was no contributory negligence.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 15
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew MacLachlan; Defender: Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability
Outcome
Decree for the pursuer.
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Employer's Liability, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Statutory Duty, Common Law Negligence, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Workplace Safety Employer's Liability Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Statutory Duty Common Law Negligence +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew MacLachlan

Pursuer

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their statutory duty under regulation 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to provide a suitable and safe traffic route for the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were negligent at common law in failing to provide a safe place of work and a safe system of work.
  3. 3 Whether any contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer caused or contributed to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders breached their statutory duty under regulation 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to keep the designated traffic route clear and suitable for use, thereby forcing the pursuer to divert and cross embedded rails at a hazardous angle, resulting in foreseeable injury. The defenders also breached their common law duty to provide a safe place of work. The accident was not caused by any fault of the pursuer; there was no contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Decree for the pursuer.

Orders

  • Defenders to pay the pursuer £5,500 sterling with interest at 8% per annum from 22 March 2017 until payment.
  • All questions of expenses reserved for further hearing.