Description
Procedure Roll: Relevancy and specification of an action for damages for personal injuries sustained when a self-employed fitness instructer fell whilst taking a fitness class. The pursuer averred that she ordinaraly used a gymnasium to take her class. On the occasion, the usual gymnasium was booked. She made alternative arrangements with the owners and occupiers of a town house. The pursuer averred that, due to the uneven, undulating surface of the floor at the town house, she lost her footing and fell to her injury. She sued the occupiers at common law and under the regulations 5 and regulations 12 (1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Contended by the defenders: the town house was not a 'workplace' in terms of the 1992 regulation; there were insufficient averments on record to support a case under common law; that any liability in any event had been excluded by contract. The pursuer contended that the case at common law and under the regulations met the appropriate standards of relevancy and specification and; that the contractual provisions excluding liability were contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Considered: the meaning of 'workplace' as distinct from a 'place of work' under the regulations. Held: the pursuer did not offer to prove that the occupiers of the town house knew that it was to be used for work rather than leisure; that the pursuer could not show, in the absence of such averments that the town house was 'made available to the pursuer as a place of work' in terms of the regulations; that the statutory case should be dismissed; that the common law case was sufficiently pled and; that the contract term restricting liability was void.
