The main contractor on the site subcontracted the interior plastering. Fifteen years later, the plasterwork collapsed causing injury. The plasterer had not used the plaster specified.
Held: Appeal allowed. A contractor may have contractual or statutory duty to supervise, but not necessarily in tort. A main contractor will not have responsibility in tort for failure to supervise the acts of a sub-contractor where it would be unreasonable to expect him to provide supervision.
Citations:
[1988] 2 All ER 992, [1987] CLY 3582, [1987] 1 FTLR 405
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
Appeal from – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England HL 14-Jul-1988
The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Torts – Other
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185189