Bruce v Ben Odeco Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 1996 |
| Date | 17 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No 40 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
FIRST DIVISION
Reparation—Negligence—Breach of statutory duty—Safe place of work—Slippery substance accumulated in floor—Whether premises maintained in safe condition—Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976 No 1019), reg 5(1)1
Regulation 5(1) of the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976 provides that: “All parts of every offshore installation and its equipment shall be so maintained as to ensure the safety of the installation and the safety and health of the persons thereon.”
A mechanic, employed on a drilling rig in the North Sea was injured in the course of his employment. While walking from a boiler room to a spare parts department on the offshore installation, His foot slipped on the metal surface of the floor, on which there was a slippery substance similar to dieselene or grease. He raised an action of damages against his employees, one of the bases of the action being a breach of reg 5(1). The defenders argued that reg 5(1) was irrelevant, which argument was upheld by the sheriff. The pursuer appealed.
Held (1) that reg 5(1), where it applied, imposed an absolute duty on the employers and required that all parts of the installation and its equipment shall be “so maintained” as to ensure the safety of the installation and the safety and health of the persons thereon; (2) that the obligation of maintenance was directed to the structural safety of the installation, upon which the safety and health of the persons thereon depended; (3) that the pursuer's averments were that the accident was caused, not by some defect in the structure of the floor, but by the presence on its surface of the slippery substance which had been spilt in the boiler room and carried to the area of the door between the boiler room and the spare parts department on the boots of persons who had been working in the boiler room; and (4) that, although there was no averment about the length of time for which the floor had been in that condition, it was clear that this was a transient condition which was not due in any way to a lack of maintenance of the structure of the floor; and appeal allowed.
Breslin v Britoil plc 1992 SLT 414 overruledin part.
John Bruce brought an action in the sheriff court against his employers, Ben Odeco Limited, craving damages in respect of personal injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment. He based his action upon breaches of regs 5(1) and 14 of the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976.
The cause called for debate before the sheriff on the defenders' preliminary plea in law directed to the applicability of reg 5(1).
After debate, at advising, the sheriff upheld the defenders' plea in law and excluded from probation averments directed to the case under reg 5(1). Quoad ultra, the sheriff allowed a proof before answer.
The pursuer appealed to the Court of Session.
Cases referred to:
Breslin v Britoil plc 1992 SLT 414
Hamilton v NCBSC 1960 SC (HL) 1
Latimer v AEC LtdELR [1953]AC 643
O'Neill v Brown [1961] 1QB 420
Ross v W & M Duncan Ltd 1959 SLT (Notes) 14
Smith v Cammell, Laird &CoELR [1940] AC 242
The cause called before the First Division, comprising the Lord President (Hope), Lord Clyde and Lord Milligan for a hearing on 2 May 1996. Eo die, their Lordships made avizandum.
At advising, on 17 May 1996;—
LORD PRESIDENT (Hope)—The pursuer seeks damages from the defenders as reparation for an injury which he claims to have sustained when he was employed as a mechanic on the defenders' drilling rig Ocean Alliance when it was situated within the Scottish area of the North Sea. The rig was an offshore installation in terms of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. It was also a fixed installation for the purposes of the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976, which apply to any offshore installation, not being a dredging installation registered as a vessel, which is maintained in controlled waters for the carrying on of any activity to which the Act applies. He claims that while he was walking from the boiler room of the installation to the spare parts department in the engine room his foot slipped on the metal surface of the floor, on which there was a slippery substance similar to dieselene or grease. Article 3 of the condescendence contains this averment: “The pursuer believes and avers that said slippery substance had been spilt when work was being carried out to the boilers in the boiler room, and had been carried to the area of the door between the boiler room and spare parts department on the boots of those who had been working at the boiler.”
Although the pursuer states in his first plea in law that he sustained loss, injury and damage as a result of the fault and negligence et separatim breach of statutory duty of the defenders, there is no case of fault at common law. The action is laid entirely on the basis of breaches of statutory duty. Two such breaches are alleged. The first is a breach of reg 5(1) of the 1976 regulations, which is concerned with general maintenance. The second is a breach of reg 14, which is concerned with general safety and imposes a duty on the owner of the rig at all times to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of persons at all places on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorothy Elizabeth Munro V. Aberdeen City Council
...keeping dangerous things away from it." This approach was followed by the First Division of the Inner House in Bruce v Ben Odeco Limited 1996 SC389, a case brought under regulation 5(1) of the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976 which provided th......