The Courier & Advertiser (Perth and Perthshire Edition)
Brain injury Perth man awarded £325,000
COURT: Judge orders compensation for gate incident when victim was eight
A Perth man who suffered brain damage after a gate fell on top of him as he played on a farm 13 years ago has been awarded compensation totalling more than £325,000.
Craig Anderson was just eight when the incident occurred in 2003. Lawyers acting for Mr Anderson argued the farmer had not done enough to ensure his safety as he played on the farm with a childhood friend.
A court heard they had been playing football but then decided to herd sheep through a gate into a steading. As he climbed on to the first rung of the gate and lifted the chain from the metal post to open it, the gate fell on top of him, pinning him to the ground.
A judge has ordered a farmer to pay a Perth man who suffered brain damage following a play time accident on her farm more than £300,000 compensation.
Lord Pentland ruled that Antoinette Imrie should hand Craig Anderson, 21, a total of £325,976 for injuries he sustained when he was just eight-years-old.
Mr Anderson went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh last October in a bid to seek a payment from Mrs Imrie and her husband, John.
Lawyers acting for Mr Anderson argued that Mrs Imrie didn’t do enough to guarantee his safety.
Mr Anderson told the court how was playing with the couple’s son, Ben, at Hillhead Farm in Torrance, East Dunbartonshire, on June 28 2003.
He was playing football in a field with Ben when the pair decided to herd sheep through a gate into a steading.
Mr Anderson told his advocate Robert Skinner that he climbed onto the first rung of the gate and lifted the chain from the metal post to open it.
However, as he did so, the gate fell on top of him, pinning him to the ground causing him to sustain a brain injury.
In a written judgement issued at the court yesterday, Lord Pentland ruled in favour of Mr Anderson.
Lord Pentland wrote that evidence showed however that Mrs Imrie didn’t do enough to prevent the accident.
He wrote: “I am satisfied that Mrs Imrie failed to ensure that the pursuer was subject to such supervision as was necessary to restrict the risk of injury to an acceptable level.
“She failed in my opinion to take reasonable care to see he did not ... injure himself.”
Mr Anderson’s lawyers claimed that he has suffered a brain injury which affected his academic performance and his ability to form and maintain relationships.
And his legal team also claimed that their client’s injury deprived him of having a professional career and that his earning capacity is now “seriously damaged.”
Lord Pentland wrote that he thought Mrs Imrie should pay compensation to Mr Anderson.
He added: “In considering the liability of the defenders to the pursuer in the present case, it seems to me to be necessary to distinguish between the positions of the two defenders.
“So far as Mr Imrie is considered, the evidence shows that he was not involved in the arrangements whereby the pursuer came to be visiting the farm on the day of the accident.
“He was working about a mile away from the farmhouse throughout the day and did not return until after the accident had occurred.
“There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that he even knew that the pursuer had come to play at the farm that day.
“I consider that Mrs Imrie failed in the duty of care she owed to the pursuer.
“For the reasons I have set out, I have assoilzied the first defender. I have found the second defender liable to make reparation to the pursuer in the total amount of £325,976.”