Description
The appellant was injured in playing on a carpet indoor tennis-court due to the type of shoe he was wearing. He sought but was denied damages from the owner of the leisure facility and in 2009 appealed to the Sherriff Principal.
In this second appeal, the court of Sessions held that at first instance the Sheriff's findings in law were justified by the findings in fact. The court held that the sheriff was entitled to grant decree of absolivitor and that the Sheriff Principal was right in refusing the appeal.
The court highlighted that the appellant represented himself without legal assistance. New evidence for the appellant having not been subject to a motion for the court to receive it as res noviter veniens ad notitiam could not be used by the court.
