The pursuer was employed by the defenders as a HGV driver until an accident occurred at work in August 2008. He was dismissed from his employment one month later following disciplinary procedure. At the time of the accident, he had been driving lorries for approximately 40 years. On the date of the accident, the pursuer was operating a “skip” or “bucket” lorry. These lorries held skips on their lorry bed, and sometimes these skips were held in chains. The pursuer’ ...
|
Minute of Amendment:- In this action for reparation a proof has been fixed for 23 November 2010. The pursuer is a party litigant who formerly had the assistance of both solicitor and counsel. On 1 December 2009 Lord Bannatyne ex proprio motu discharged the second diet of proof and motions on behalf of the defenders for the expenses of the discharge and for caution for £25,000 for expenses were heard on 15 March 2010. Lord Bannatyne issued an Opinion dated 8 April 2010. S ...
|
Proof:- In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defender for injuries suffered by him following an accident. On 23 April 2005 the pursuer was travelling south through the village of Blackridge on a motorcycle, with his son as a pillion passenger when, as he reached the crest of a hill as he left the village, he saw a fire tender travelling towards him on his side of the road and the motorcycle struck the offside of the tender and both the pursuer and his son were seriously injured. He ...
|
In this action the pursuer sought damages from the first defender for injuries which he sustained as a result of a road accident on 30 May 2004. In addition the pursuer sought from the second defender declarator that they were liable to satisfy any decree awarded against the first defender if any decree remained unpaid by the first defender after seven days. On 30 May 2004 the pursuer had allowed himself to be driven by the first defender following a party. An accident occurred on the A83 Tarber ...
|
Motion for expenses and caution:- In this action the pursuer sought damages from the defenders for injuries which he sustained as a result of an accident while in the course of their employment at Inverness Airport on 18 June 2003. It was the pursuer’s case that he sustained the injuries to his back as a result of carrying two heavy cases of juice. The case was based on a breach of regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and the defenders' fault at common law. ...
|
The pursuer was employed by the defenders at a supermarket in St. Andrews. During the course of his employment the pursuer stacked shelves. On two separate occasions in December 2005 and a month later, the pursuer injured his back whilst lifting heavy goods within the supermarket. Following the second accident the pursuer was off work for two weeks, after which he was initially returned to light duties. Since then the pursuer has performed his normal duties despite suffering back pain throughout ...
|
Proof:- On 31 January 2004, sapper Robert Thomson, a member of 35 Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed during his fourth tour of Iraq when he was crushed by earth when it collapsed on him whilst he was recovering soil samples from a trench. Here his mother and brother sought damages from the Ministry of Defence at common law, that he died through the fault of the Ministry of Defence on account of their failure to provide a safe place of work and their failure to devise and institute a safe syst ...
|
Proof:- On 7 October 2007 the pursuer was driving his car on the M8 towards the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow. The pursuer slowed down to take heed of queuing traffic, and was close to stopping, when he was hit from behind by a van driven by the defender. The pursuer came to a halt and was again struck by the defender's van, pushing him into the rear of the car in front of him being driven by a Mr Cassidy which resulted in a scuff on his car’s rear bumper. The second contact between ...
|
Here a motion was made on behalf of eleven individuals who claimed to have been diagnosed with bilateral pleural plaques caused by negligent exposure to asbestos and who had actions for loss, injury and damage in process or in immediate contemplation for leave to enter the process in terms of Rule of Court 58.8(2). The motion was opposed on behalf of the petitioners on the basis that Rule of Court 58.8(2) did not apply to those persons on whose behalf the motion was made and that it was not in t ...
|
Proof:- On 27 January 2006, the pursuer, a 45 year old man at the time of the incident, was driving his scooter in Aberdeen when he lost control, fell and was injured. It was the pursuer’s contention that the accident was caused by a bus operated by the defenders, and driven by one of their employees acting in the course of his employment, travelling in the opposite direction to the pursuer which caused him to fall off. During the course of his evidence the pursuer stated that the bus was ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |