Lorry driver awarded £56,000 damages from employer after personal injury sheriff rules claim not exhausted

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC EDIN 17
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Robert D M Fife

Thomas Ward raised the action against his employer PPF Ltd as well as WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc, which operated the vehicles used by PPF. Settlement terms were agreed between Mr Ward and WM Morrison as first defender, which PPF, the second defender, contended had settled the entire case by way of compromise.

The case was heard by Sheriff Robert Fife in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court. Allardice, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Tosh, advocate, for the second defender. No appearance was made by the first defender.

Full and final settlement

On 16 October 2015, the pursuer was driving in the course of his employment from Bellshill to Bishopbriggs on the M8 motorway when he had to brake sharply as another vehicle cut in front of his truck. He became concerned that the load in the trailer may have moved as a consequence, and when unloading at Bishopbriggs he saw the contents of one of the pallets had slipped towards the front of the trailer. The pursuer felt responsible for some of the load moving in transit and tried to use a pallet truck to stabilise it, but as he did so the load overbalanced, and the pallet struck him on the foot and pushed him off the trailer.

After he returned to work in December 2016, the pursuer had been able to manage his job as a lorry driver albeit working reduced shifts. The first defender offered the pursuer a settlement of £110,000, which he accepted on the advice of his solicitors and senior counsel. The pursuer’s expert witness Stan Johnston, a health and safety consultant, said in evidence that both defenders were at fault for the accident, there being no evidence of proper supervision.

For the pursuer it was submitted that it was up to the second defender to make it clear that he ought not to have gone into the trailer, and they failed to do so. It had previously been determined by the Sheriff Appeal Court that the settlement agreement did not mean the claim had been paid in full, and the second defender’s argument that the sum accepted from the first defender was a full and final settlement was misconceived.

Counsel for the second defender submitted that the pursuer had acted incompetently and unreasonably in electing to continue with his action in the circumstances, which amounted to an abuse of process. If the payment from the first defender made up for any loss, injury, or damage he sustained, no damage remained for which the second defender was obliged to compensate him.

Failed to take care

In his decision, Sheriff Fife began by addressing the settlement with the first defender: “That settlement took place at a Pre-Trial Meeting where the pursuer was represented by solicitors and senior counsel. The pursuer relied on advice from senior counsel and the solicitors. Their position, on behalf of the pursuer, was that the settlement was only in relation to the action as directed against the first defender.”

He continued: “At appeal, the Sheriff Appeal Court applied the test in Kidd v Lime Rock Management LLP (2021). The terms of the settlement agreement, viewed in its surrounding context, did not indicate the pursuer had accepted the sum in full and final satisfaction of all his claims against the first defender and the second defender. The pursuer did not accept £110,000 from the first defender in full and final settlement of all his claims.”

Considering whether any damage remained for which the second defender was liable, Sheriff Fife said: “The second defender failed to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pursuer. They failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. They did not devise, institute, maintain or enforce a safe system of work. They failed to give the pursuer any training including that the pursuer must not enter the trailer when pallets were being unloaded.”

He concluded on contributory negligence: “The pursuer decided to enter the rear of the trailer without being asked to do so, because he wanted to assist in righting the load that had moved in transit. The pursuer was not prohibited from being in the rear of the trailer in these circumstances, but he was not trained in the use of a pallet truck. While using the pallet truck, the load overbalanced and the pallet struck the pursuer’s left foot causing him to fall off the trailer. The pursuer’s own actions contributed to the accident.”

Sheriff Fife assessed total damages at £238,311, less 30 per cent for contributory negligence. After deducting the £110,000 received from the first defender, he found the claim had not been exhausted and the sum payable by the second defender was £56,818.