Search court cases and case law in the UK


Gavin Slessor v. Vetco Gray UK Ltd & c [2007] CSOH 59


On 13 May 2003 the pursuer was working in Aberdeen in the course of his employment with the defenders when a control module weighing 1.7 tons fell from a crane and struck him causing him severe injuries, including amputation of the right leg and arm. Here the pursuer sought damages from the defenders who denied liability. They blamed a third party, who supplied and fitted a component of the crane assembly. They also claimed that the accident was caused or contributed to by the pursuer's sole fault or contributory negligence. The pursuer enrolled a motion for summary decree against the defenders in terms of Rule 21.2. that was opposed:- "It is not clear from the motion what remedy the pursuer is seeking. In any event the pursuer's motion should be refused as there is a defence to the action disclosed in the defences. The defenders are not in breach of Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The defenders also offer to prove that the pursuer was solely responsible for the accident. They also offer to prove that the pursuer contributed to his loss, injury and damage through his own negligence." It was submitted for the pursuer that the defenders be liable to make reparation to the pursuer, and to restrict any further inquiry to (i) issues of contributory fault; (ii) the question of any liability on the part of the third party; and (iii) quantification of damages. Here the court considered whether the defenders had a defence to the pursuer's case based on Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 or whether summary decree should be granted in terms of Rule of Court 21.2