000			01294cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS38829
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u12605
041			_aeng
100			_aChappell, D.
245			_aLegal report. Negligence?
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aArchitects` Journal _v187(8) 24 February 1988, 69-70(2)
520			_aSummarises 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.
650			_aARCHITECTS
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c8057 _d8057