This case provided one of the first decisions interpreting the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992. It held that the individual regulations are not mutually exclusive and should be looked at in conjunction with one another. In doing so the court adopted a purposeful interpretation of the regulations, in accordance with the spirit of the EC Workplace Directive (89/654/EEC).
|
Proof:- On 27 September 2005 the pursuer, an employee of the defender, sustained serious injuries when he fell under and was run over by the wheels of a tractor. In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders in respect of that accident. The circumstances of the accident were that the pursuer was transporting the last load of the day and opened a gate, drove through it and stopped the tractor and trailer half on the verge on a slightly downhill slope. The pursuer left the tractor t ...
|
The Pursuer (aged 24 at Proof) claimed damages following a road traffic accident in which his car was struck by the Defender’s car. The Defender admitted liability but quantum was disputed. A Proof took place at which the Pursuer was the only witness. The parties had entered into a Joint Minute of admissions in which it was agreed that a consultant orthopaedic surgeon’s reports contained a true and accurate account of the nature and effect of the Pursuer’s injurie ...
|
Proof:- On 4 June 2001 the pursuer was involved in a road traffic accident when a tractor towing a trailer being driven by an employee of the defenders, in the course of his employment with them, passed the pursuer on the other side of the road. As it did so, the trailer became detached from the tractor and swung into the pursuer's path, colliding directly with his vehicle. The pursuer received a number of injuries. In this action the pursuer sought damages for the personal injuries sustained in ...
|
Proof:- On 20 January 2003 the pursuer, a teacher, was driving her motor car northwards on the A77, as she made her way to work, when she was involved in a serious road traffic accident. A lorry came out of a lay-by and the pursuer moved into the offside lane to avoid it, braked, and as she did so a car coming at speed from her rear ran into her. There was a claim for her physical injuries and anxiety disorder which she received treatment for in hospital. By November 2004 she was found to be suf ...
|
The Pursuer (aged 36 at Proof) was injured in March 2007 when the Defender’s car collided with the bus on which she was travelling. The Defender admitted liability but quantum was disputed and a Summary Cause Proof took place, at which the only witness was the Pursuer. The terms of an expert medical report were agreed. As a result of the collision, the Pursuer sustained soft tissue injuries to her lower back, left wrist, forearm and elbow, as well as to her left ankle. She also dev ...
|
Action for damages for personal injuries. The pursuer was one of a team of police officers who were instructed to aid the enforcement of an eviction order at a local swimming pool. The swimming pool centre had been closed and the decision had invited much protest. In particular, the pool provided weekly sessions for asian women in the community and alternative facilities did not provide this opportunity. Police officers formed a chain around the entrance to the building so that contracters were ...
|
Outer House, Court of Session-Reparation-Personal Injury-Action of damages arising out of an accident at a barge in Norway. The pursuer was working as a pipe fitter. He required to negotiate a step over an exposed area of floor. there was piping under the floor. in the circumstances, the pursuer chose to step onto the piping to move to the other side of the room. In doing so he slipped and broke his ankle. Defenders admitted they owed a duty to the pursuer, despite suggestion that he was self-em ...
|
Preliminary Ruling of the ECJ (Second Chamber) Dated 13th of December 2007 On the 28th of December 2000 Mr Odenbreit, domiciled in Germany, was involved in a road traffic accident in the Netherlands. The negligent driver was insured by FBTO. Mr Odenbreit brought an action against the insurer before his local court in the place where he was domiciled (Germany). His local court dismissed the action as inadmissible as the court did not consider it had jurisdiction as the RTA ...
|
The Pursuer, aged 49 at Proof, sought damages following a road accident. Liability was admitted and the Proof was restricted to quantum. The Pursuer suffered a whiplash injury to his neck and was left with intermittent neck pain and headaches. These settled within 7 months of the accident. For 6 weeks he also suffered severe low back pain and right elbow pain. A cut to his head and bruising healed within 2 weeks. For 12 weeks after the accident the Pursuer suffered low moods and ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |