Clay v AJ Crump and Sons Ltd: CA 1964

An architect, a demolition contractor and a building contractor were each held liable to an employee of building contractors for the collapse of a wall which, with the architect’s approval, demolition contractors had left standing.
Held: As far as tests for causation were concerned each case must be tested on its own facts and there was no general rule.
If an architect or engineer designs a house or a bridge so negligently that it falls down, he is liable to every one of those who are injured in the fall.


Upjohn LJ


[1964] 1 QB 533


England and Wales


AppliedStapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .

Cited by:

CitedBinod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
CitedGray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
CitedSutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006
Preliminary Report of Risk – No Duty of Care
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. He said that a report had identified the risks. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.194627