G. Percy Trentham Ltd v Beattie Watkinson and Partners
G. Percy Trentham Ltd v Beattie Watkinson and Partners
- 1987
- Scots Law Times (1987) SLT 449-452(4) .
Outer House 7 June 1985. An action of damages raised by the pursuers ( building contractors )(B) for professional negligence against the defenders ( civil engineers )(C). Part of a wall of a building being renovated by B collapsed and under the contract terms with the owners B had to reinstate the wall. They sought to recover the costs incurred from C. B claimed that the wall collapsed by reason of pressure from fill in an inaccessible space increased by water saturation and which could not be resisted by the wall after excavations had taken place. They blamed C for failing to investigate soil and ground conditions in the area of the wall, for failing to indicate the presence of fill in drawings and for failing to direct that the wall be shored, all on the basis that a reasonable competent engineer would have done so. Held that there was a relationship of proximity between the parties, but the scope of duty owed by the engineers was not necessarily based on what a reasonably competen
DUTY OF CARE
G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V BEATTIE WATKINSON AND PARTNERS
Outer House 7 June 1985. An action of damages raised by the pursuers ( building contractors )(B) for professional negligence against the defenders ( civil engineers )(C). Part of a wall of a building being renovated by B collapsed and under the contract terms with the owners B had to reinstate the wall. They sought to recover the costs incurred from C. B claimed that the wall collapsed by reason of pressure from fill in an inaccessible space increased by water saturation and which could not be resisted by the wall after excavations had taken place. They blamed C for failing to investigate soil and ground conditions in the area of the wall, for failing to indicate the presence of fill in drawings and for failing to direct that the wall be shored, all on the basis that a reasonable competent engineer would have done so. Held that there was a relationship of proximity between the parties, but the scope of duty owed by the engineers was not necessarily based on what a reasonably competen
DUTY OF CARE
G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V BEATTIE WATKINSON AND PARTNERS