Gavin Slessor V. Vetco Gray Uk Ltd &c
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Paton |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] CSOH 59 |
| Date | 23 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | PD1199/05 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 23 March 2007 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2007] CSOH 59 | |
| PD1199/05 | OPINION OF LADY PATON in the cause GAVIN SLESSOR Pursuer; against VETCO GRAY UK LIMITED Defenders: and VETCO GRAY CONTROLS LIMITED Third Party ________________ |
Pursuer: A Smith QC; Anderson Strathern
Defenders: R Smith QC, Gardiner; Simpson & Marwick
Third Party: No Appearance
23 March 2007
Introduction
[1] The pursuer was born on 2 May 1977. On 13 May 2003 he was working in Aberdeen in the course of his employment with the defenders. A control module weighing about 1.7 tons fell from a crane and struck him. He suffered severe injuries, including amputation of the right leg and arm. In this action he seeks damages from the defenders. The defenders for their part deny liability. They blame a third party, Vetco Gray Controls Limited, who supplied and fitted a component of the crane assembly. They also claim that the accident was caused or contributed to by the pursuer's sole fault or contributory negligence.
Motion for summary decree on the issue of liability
[2] After sundry procedure, governed by Chapter 43 of the Rules of the Court of Session, the pursuer sought a jury trial in terms of Rule 43.6(5). The defenders opposed jury trial. The matter was debated before Lord Emslie, but a continued diet of debate became necessary. Before that continued debate could take place, the pursuer amended his pleadings to focus his case solely upon a breach of Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. He then enrolled a motion for summary decree against the defenders in terms of Rule 21.2. The defenders opposed the motion in the following terms:
"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."
[3] Lord Emslie advised counsel that it was not necessary that he personally should hear the motion for summary decree. The motion came before me. I was invited to find the defenders 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. Senior counsel for the pursuer explained that, once the question of summary decree had been decided, the case would return to Lord Emslie for the continued debate on proof or jury trial: hence the pursuer's use of the broad phrase "further inquiry".
Rule of Court 21.2
[4] Rule 21.2 of the Rules of the Court of Session provides:
"(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (5) of this rule, a pursuer may, at any time after a defender has lodged defences while the action is depending before the court, apply by motion for summary decree against that defender on the ground that there is no defence to the action, or a part of it, disclosed in the defences.
(2) In applying for summary decree, the pursuer may move the court -
(a) to grant decree in terms of all or any of the conclusions of the summons;
(b) to pronounce an interlocutor sustaining or repelling a plea-in-law; or
(c) to dispose of the whole or a part of the subject-matter of the action ...
(4) On a motion under paragraph (1), the court may -
(a) if satisfied that there is no defence to the action disclosed or to any part of it to which the motion relates, grant the motion for summary decree in whole or in part, as the case may be ...".
Pleadings
[5] The parties' pleadings include the following averments:
Statement IV
[6] On or about 13 May 2003, the pursuer was working in the course of his employment with the defenders as a Mechanical Fitter. He was working at the defenders' premises at Broadfold Road, Aberdeen. The pursuer was assisting with lifting a control module by crane. The control module weighed about 1.7 tons. The pursuer was guiding the control module into a hole in a structure known as a Christmas Tree. To do this the pursuer had to stand on the Christmas Tree next to the hole. The defenders were using the wrong sized lifting adaptors. As a result the control module was not properly secured to the crane. The control module fell from the crane and struck the pursuer. As a result of the accident the pursuer suffered the following loss, injury and damage. On October 2004 the defenders pled guilty to breaches of Sections 2(1) and 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and were fined £17,500. The charges were that the defenders had failed to instruct their employees as to how to identify the correct lifting adaptor, failed to identify who had responsibility to fit the lifting adaptors and failed to provide a system of work which did not require employees to be under or in close proximity to the suspended load when the module was being lifted. During the course of the plea in mitigation the defenders' agent accepted that the defenders were wholly to blame for the accident and expressed remorse on their behalf. The defenders have provided a risk assessment for lifting operations. That risk assessment identifies failures of tackle as a significant hazard with potentially serious or fatal injuries to riggers and slingers. The measure identified to reduce this risk is certification of statutory tests and examinations to be provided with the goods. No such certification or examinations were provided with the lifting adaptor. Since the accident the procedure has been changed so that the modules are guided into position using guidelines. This means that there is no need for anyone to stand on the Christmas Tree beneath the module being lifted. The lifting adaptor was work equipment in terms of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. With reference to the defenders' averments in answer, admitted that the pursuer was an experienced banksman. Admitted that the control module and lifting adaptor were supplied to the defenders by Vetco Gray Controls Limited who were formerly known as ABB Offshore Systems Limited. Admitted that in order to install the control module it had to be lifted using a crane. Admitted that the lifting adaptor on the crane had to lock onto a mandril located on top of the control module. Admitted that the lifting adaptor supplied by Vetco Gray Controls Limited was the wrong size for the mandril. Not known and not admitted what role Stephen Rowney had to play in installing the control module. Quoad ultra denied except insofar as coinciding herewith. Explained and averred that the pursuer was following normal practice and procedure at the time of the accident. The defenders are called upon to specify where else the pursuer could have stood in order to carry out this operation.
Answer 4 for Defenders
[7] Admitted that on 13 May 2003, the pursuer was working in the course of his employment with the defenders as a Mechanical Fitter. Admitted that he was working at the defenders' premises at Broadfold Road, Aberdeen. Admitted that the defenders were convicted of breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and fined £17,500. The circumstances of the accident are not known and not admitted. Any loss, injury or damage sustained by the pursuer is not known and not admitted. Quoad ultra denied. The pursuer was an experienced banksman. He had received training as a banksman slinger. He fitted the lifting adaptor to the control module. He did not check that the lifting adaptor was the correct size for the mandril. He did not make sure that the lifting adaptor was securely locked onto the mandril on the control module before advising the crane operator to lift the control module. In addition he was under the control module when it fell. He was trained not to place himself below a suspended load during a lifting operation. The pursuer caused or materially contributed to his own injury by failing to make sure that the lifting adaptor was the correct size for the mandril, failing to make sure that the adaptor was securely locked onto the mandril and standing beneath a suspended load. In any event the control module and lifting adaptor were supplied to the defenders by Vetco Gray Controls Limited, 2 High Street, Nailsea, Bristol, BS48 1BS who were formerly known as ABB Offshore Systems Limited. Stephen Rowney, a Field Service Engineer with Vetco Gray Controls Limited, was responsible for the installation of the control module. In order to install the control module it had to be lifted using a crane. The lifting adaptor on the crane had to lock onto a mandril located on top of the control module. The lifting adaptor supplied by Vetco Gray Controls Limited was the wrong size for the mandril. Stephen Rowney did not check that the lifting adaptor was the correct size for the mandril. He did not supervise the lifting operation. Esto the accident occurred because the wrong lifting adaptor was used to lift the control module, which is not known and admitted, the accident was caused by the fault and negligence of Vetco Gray Controls Limited et separatim their breach of statutory duty. It was also caused by the fault and negligence of Stephen Rowney for whom Vetco Gray Controls Limited are vicariously liable.
Statement VI
[8] The accident was caused by the defenders' breach of Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The defenders' averments are denied insofar as coinciding herewith.
Answer 6 for Defenders
[9] Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 is referred to for its terms beyond which no admission is made. Quoad ultra denied. The defenders contend that (i) they are not liable to make reparation to the pursuer, (ii) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kevin O'neill V. Dowding And Mills Plc+david W. Smith Ltd
...uncomplicated. [10] More closely in point, it was said, was my own decision refusing issues in Slessor v Vetco Gray UK Ltd and Others 2007 CSOH 59. There (as here) the pursuer's averments left the matter of future loss largely uncertain and unexplained; other documents in process presented ......