Tuesday, 1 August 2017





What  is the  difference between a fitness for purpose responsibility and  an obligation to exercise reasonable skill and  care?
Clients  when appointing a designer, whether architect, engineer, contractor
or subcontractor, expect the building or structure to operate when complete in the manner envisaged when  the appointment was made. If the building or structure fails  to  meet  the  client's expectations there  are  often  questions asked  of the designer and/or contractor as to whether the problem resulted from  a  failure  on  their  part  to  meet  their  contractual  obligations. These obligations will normally take  the  form  of implied or express  terms  in the conditions of appointment or the terms of the contract under which the work was carried out.
In the  absence  of an express  term  in the  contract for providing a design service  there  will be an implied term  that  the designer will use reasonable skill and  care. The standard is not that of the hypothetical 'reasonable man' of ordinary prudence and  intelligence, but  a higher standard related to his professed expertise. This was laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Manage- ment Committee (1957) by Mr Justice McNair:
W]here  you  get a situation which  involves the use of some  special  skill or competence
, then  the test whether there  has been  negligence or not is not the test of the man  on top  of a Clapham omnibus, because  he has not got this  special  skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled  man  exercising and  professing to have  that  special  skill A man  need  not possess  the highest expert  skill at the risk of being  found negligent. It is well-established law that  it is sufficient if he exercises the  ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man  exercising that  particular art.
A person who professes to have a greater expertise than  in fact he possesses
will be judged on the basis of his pretended skills.
In Wimpey Construction UK Ltd v. DV Poole (1984), a case where unusually the plaintiffs were attempting to prove  their own negligence, they attempted to convince  the  judge  that  a higher standard was  appropriate to the  case under consideration. They put forward two 'glosses', as the judge referred to them:
First,  that  if the  client  deliberately obtains and  pays  for  someone with
specially  high  skill the Bolam test is not sufficient
Second, that the professional person has a duty to exercise reasonable care in  the  light  of  his  actual  knowledge, not  the  lesser  knowledge of  the ordinary competent practitioner.
As regards the first gloss, the judge  felt obliged  to reject it in favor of the
Bolam test. However the judge  accepted the second  gloss, not as a qualification  of  the  Bola  test  but  as  a  direct   application of  the  principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).
You must  take reasonable care to avoid  acts or omissions which  you can reason- ably foresee  would be likely to injure  your  neighbor.

No comments:

Post a Comment