William Weir V. Csc Forest Products Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Clarke |
| Date | 05 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | A3363/01 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 05 September 2002 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| A3363/01
| OPINION OF LORD CLARKE in the cause WILLIAM WEIR Pursuer; against CSC FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer: Allardice; Thompsons
Defender: Thomson; Simpson & Marwick, W.S.
5 September 2002
[1]In this action the pursuer, who is a fireman, sues for damages in respect of injuries he alleges he sustained while carrying out fire-fighting duties at the defender's premises at Station Road, Cowie, Stirlingshire, on 20 May 1998. He pleads a case based on the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and a case based on breaches of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
[2]The matter came before me for discussion on the procedure roll, on the defenders' preliminary plea as to the relevancy and specification of the pursuer's averments. Counsel for the defenders' primary position, at the commencement of his submissions, was that the action should be dismissed as being wholly irrelevant. Ultimately, however, his position was that the case based on the 1992 Regulations was suitable for proof before answer, provided certain averments were deleted from the pursuer's pleadings.
[3]The nature of the accident, which occurred to the pursuer, at the defenders' premises, as averred by him in Article 2 of Condescendence, is that as he was stepping over some pipes which ran along the floor of the premises "his foot went down into an uncovered pit of some 90 cm in depth causing him to fall forward". It is also averred by the pursuer, in Article 2 of Condescendence, that "no attempt had been made by the defenders to cover, guard or otherwise warn persons of the presence of said pit". Elsewhere in Article 2, the pursuer avers that the floor was covered in water from the ongoing fire-fighting operations and that "the said pit was filled with water from the fire-fighting operations that were taking place at the time of the accident". It is, furthermore, averred by the pursuer that "the fire was caused by the spontaneous combustion of large quantities of MDF sawdust that the defenders had allowed to accumulate at the roof level of said premises".
[4]In Article 3 of Condescendence, the pursuer makes various averments to the effect that the defenders knew, or ought to have known, that there was an accumulation of large quantities of sawdust in their premises, which they ought to have known presented a fire hazard and that if the sawdust was ignited it would be likely that fire officers, such as the pursuer, would require to attend at the premises. The pursuer also avers that the defenders knew, or ought to have known, that "if they left said pit on the floor of the premises uncovered or unguarded that it posed an obvious and material risk to persons moving around said premises, including fire-fighters engaged in fire-fighting duties". In the foregoing circumstances the pursuer avers that the defenders had a duty not to allow a build-up of sawdust at the roof level and a duty not to leave the pit uncovered, in both of which duties, the pursuer avers the defenders failed.
[5]Article 4 of Condescendence, in setting out the case based on the 1992 Regulations, contains averment that the breach of these Regulations arose from the presence of the pit which the pursuer avers meant that, in terms of the Regulations, the "workplace was therefore not maintained in an efficient state".
[6]Counsel for the defenders, in the first place, submitted that the pursuer's averments regarding the outbreak of the fire were irrelevant, because the fire was not the cause of the alleged injuries to the pursuer. The alleged injuries were caused by his fall. The averments regarding the cause of the fire should, therefore, be deleted. He, furthermore, submitted that these averments were irrelevant because the injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the fire. His next submission was that the pursuer's averments relating to the pit were lacking in specification, regarding the size, characteristics and location of the pit and, accordingly, there was no proper factual basis averred to support the case of fault set out in Article 3 of Condescendence. In what I understood to be a related point, counsel submitted that, in any event, the pursuer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial