Legal report. Negligence?
Language: English Series: Architects` Journal ; 187(8) 24 February 1988, 69-70(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: Summarises the points raised in Wimpey Construction UK Ltd v D V Poole , QBD 18 April 1984, see WB2018-29, which concerned construction of a new quay wall and foundations for a mono tower crane at a shipyard in Southampton . When cracks became apparent in the wall and remedial works carried out the plaintiff designers claimed under the insurance policy for the expense of the remedial works, on the basis that they had been negligent in design and, alternatively, that even if they were not negligent, the terms of the policy enabled them to recover for loss arising out of an omission or an error, even if not negligent. The judge held that the " Bolam " test was applicable, ie the standard of the ordinary skilled man in a particular profession.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS38829 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 12605-1001 |
Summarises the points raised in Wimpey Construction UK Ltd v D V Poole , QBD 18 April 1984, see WB2018-29, which concerned construction of a new quay wall and foundations for a mono tower crane at a shipyard in Southampton . When cracks became apparent in the wall and remedial works carried out the plaintiff designers claimed under the insurance policy for the expense of the remedial works, on the basis that they had been negligent in design and, alternatively, that even if they were not negligent, the terms of the policy enabled them to recover for loss arising out of an omission or an error, even if not negligent. The judge held that the " Bolam " test was applicable, ie the standard of the ordinary skilled man in a particular profession.