The claimant sought damages for personal injuries arising from exposure to depleted uranium whilst working for the defendant. An earlier claim had been compromised. The defendant denied liabilty and relied also on the compromise. Held: The evidence from expert witnesses was conflicting, but there was no sufficient evidence of exposure of the claimant to depleted … Continue reading David v Honeywell Normalair-Garrett Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2006
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence. Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which govern the admissibility of skilled evidence: (i) whether the proposed skilled evidence will assist the court … Continue reading Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp: SC 10 Feb 2016
The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her feet in these conditions. Held: The reclaimer was granted. The Lord Ordinary … Continue reading Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp: SCS 19 Sep 2014
Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow. Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.Lord McEwan summarised the expert evidence: He then looked at the risk assessments. Agreeing in general with the later evidence of … Continue reading Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp: SCS 7 Aug 2013
The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company . .
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. He had been employed cleaning streets and when his hand was badly cut, complained that he should have had protective gloves.
Held: For equipment to be suitable, it . .
. .
Outer House – The pursuer sought damages from her employers, saying that she had slipped on a wet floor, and had not been provided with non-slip shoes. . .
The claimant was a security guard employed to collect cash from various sites. He was robbed and shot. The employer had not provided body armour nor encouraged its use. He appealed dismissal of his claim, which had been on the basis that since he . .
A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of . .
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable . .
