Outer House 4 December 1987. Action by owners of premises (A) against the council (S) for damages arising out of a burst water main , owned by S which flooded A`s premises causing financial loss . A submitted that it was S`s duty to take reasonable care to see that the water main had been laid and was maintained (including maintenance by way of replacement if necessary or appropriate) in such condition that it would not burst. A alleged that the burst occurred through lack of proper maintenance. A did not specify what they meant by "proper maintenance". Had they sought evidence as to how an old pipe might be examined for signs of failure, and evidence as to how water authorities inspect, monitor and maintain such pipes , such notice would have been given. As it stood there was no averment by A as to the kind of maintenance appropriate or even possible. A failed to explain what they meant by proper maintenance. Held that A`s case was irrelevant. Action dismissed.