By Catherine Hart on 16/07/2008 18:44
This action concerned liability for a road accident involving the Pursuer’s car and a car being driven by the Defenders' employee, M. Quantum was agreed and a Proof on liability took place at which the Pursuer and M were the only witnesses. The accident occurred on a road which had four lanes, two in each direction. M had been in the process of carrying out a u-turn from the south bound carriageway to the north bound carriageway. During the course of this manoeuvre, he had stoppe ...
|
By Euan Dow on 15/07/2008 17:36
Reparation:- Between March 1999 and April 2004 the pursuer was employed by the defenders at their premises in Inverurie. In this action the pursuer sought damages for personal injuries which she said she suffered as a result of being exposed to formaldehyde and other chemicals during her work in the chicken hatching unit of the defenders. She claimed that as a result of the defenders' failures in duty the pursuer contracted occupational asthma and sought damages of £100,000. At proof liabil ...
|
By Euan Dow on 09/07/2008 09:52
Reparation - In these two actions the pursuers, both fishermen, sought damages from the defenders for injuries they say they sustained following a collision between their vessel, "The Harvester" and a vessel belonging to the defenders "The Strilmoy". Both pursuers raised their claims under Chapter 43 of the Rules of Court. The pursuers in Article 3 of the condescendence state:- "The present action arises out of a collision at sea on 4 November 2005 as condescended upon below. An action arising o ...
|
By Euan Dow on 09/07/2008 09:51
Reparation - Debate:- In this action the pursuer, a senior lecturer employed with the defenders from 1999 to 2001, sought damages from the defenders after she went off work with symptoms that she attributed to her excessive workload and lead her to be diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric injury. At debate it was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the action should be dismissed on three grounds:- (1) on the pursuer's averments, the defenders could not have foreseen the risk of psychia ...
|
By Euan Dow on 09/07/2008 09:35
Reparation - Proof:- In this action the pursuers were the executors and family of the deceased who died from mesothelioma in 2005. The defenders were the successors of the rights and liabilities of the former employers of the deceased. At proof a joint minute of admissions was entered in to in which the defenders admitted liability to make reparation to the first pursuers and the parties agreed damages in the sum of £70,000. The only issue outstanding issue related to the sum of £9,912 ...
|
By Martin Crawford on 03/07/2008 14:49
Action involving fracture of pipe under ground in an area which was being cleared for a carpark. Damages agreed in a joint minute. The pursuers' second plea in law stated that there had been a failure to take reasonable care on the part of the defenders. The defenders had little experience of property development and had subcontracted much of the construction work out. they were ignorant of much of the work being carried out on the site. The case centered on the pleadings and whether the defende ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 25/06/2008 18:30
The Pursuer was employed by the Defenders as a slater/builder. He and a colleague were instructed to remove slabs from the garden of a property owned by the Defenders. Part of the operation involved breaking up a concrete block and they did so using a pickaxe and a large hammer. As the Pursuer tried to lift a section of concrete, he felt pain in his back. It was discovered that brick work had become attached to the under side of the concrete. The Defenders had carried out a generic risk assessme ...
|
By Euan Dow on 17/06/2008 18:40
Reclaiming Motion:- On 6 May 1997 in the course of his employment with the defenders the pursuer suffered injury whilst working on a barge in assistance of two divers. An action was raised in May 2000 and, following a proof in 2003, on 18 February 2004 the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defenders. Here the pursuer reclaimed against that decision. The only ground of fault that the pursuer relied upon at proof was in the following terms:- "They (the defenders) knew or ought to have known that if the ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 28/05/2008 20:17
The Pursuers and Appellants were the joint proprietors of a first floor flat. The Defender and Respondent was the heritable proprietor of the shop which was located directly below the flat. The Defender had arranged for alteration works to be carried out to the shop. The works were subject to a building warrant issued by South Ayrshire Council, but were not carried out in accordance with the building warrant. A load bearing wall had been removed without the construction of a central ...
|
By Euan Dow on 23/05/2008 07:23
Proof - Reparation:- In this action the pursuer, a 20 year old trainee service engineer employed by Stilcan Industrial Conveyors Ltd, attended at the defenders' premises at Glen Ord Distillery to carry out maintenance work on scrapers on two conveyor belts. Whilst carrying out the repair work his legs became crawn in to a screw feeder and he suffered injuries to his legs. In this action the pursuer sought damages for the injuries that he suffered as a result of the accident. Liability was admitt ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 |