Description
The pursuer sought damages against the defenders having suffered injuries whilst skiing at Aonach Mor on 20 March 2002. Counsel for the pursuer made a motion for the proof on liability to be separated from proof on quantum and to restrict the present proof to liability only. The motion was unopposed and granted. The Proof heard that the pursuer fell after the weather closed in whilst he was up on the mountain. It transpired that the pursuer had fallen through the cornice to the north of the entrance to the Chancer run. He suffered significant injures in the fall, including a four-part proximal fracture to the left humerus and a three-part proximal fracture to the right humerus. The pursuer criticised the lack of some kind of line of markers between the Summit Tow and the entrance to the Back Track run and there ought to have been warning signs along the ridge so that someone in his position would not be able to get to the edge without appreciating where they were. The pursuer highlighted two issues for consideration in the case:-(1) What was the danger in this case?(2) Did the defenders show such care as in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable to see that the pursuer would not suffer injury or damage by reason of such danger? The court here considered whether the steps taken by the defenders to ensure safety in the region of the summit plateau met the test of such care as in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable to see that a skier did not suffer injury or damage and whether placing warning signs at regular intervals along the summit ridge would have an impact upon the natural beauty and character of the landscape.
