Son worried

ghost_rider

HO87 wrote: »

A duty of care in tort is an inherent part of any contractual relationship of the type that would seem to exist between the OP's son and his employers - and can outlast any terms of it.

In the circumstances outlined the OP's son was employed in his professional capacity as a plasterer fitting boards ready for plastering and as part of this he would be expected to exercise a level of care that a "reasonable plasterer" would to ensure that, for example, the boards were of the correct type for the job, he used the appropriate fittings and that whilst doing so he did not damage anything lying under the boards etc.

The damage was caused directly by his actions (cutting through cables or puncturing pipework are foreseeable consequences of fitting plasterboards) and but for them his employers would not have to make repairs.

Tortious liability is an established part of the Common Law and its application and interpretation has been developed through case law. The case held up as the best establishing the modern concept of a duty of care is the well known Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].

:rotfl: Wiki is your friend obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v._Stevenson

ghost_rider

Anyway a duty of care is tantamount to any working relationship, what is not clear is whether the OP'S son is contracturally bound to make good any financial loss due to error on his behalf. If this has not been established in any form of contract either written or verbal then the employer would have to make a case against the OP's son and take it to Court, where they may win or lose.

HO87

ghost_rider wrote: »

Anyway a duty of care is tantamount to any working relationship, what is not clear is whether the OP'S son is contracturally bound to make good any financial loss due to error on his behalf. If this has not been established in any form of contract either written or verbal then the employer would have to make a case against the OP's son and take it to Court, where they may win or lose.

This is incorrect. The duty of care in tort immediately carries with it the liability to return the other party to the position they would have occupied had, in this case, the OP's son not drilled into the pipework. This is what "damages" are.

This liability is not in anyway dependant upon any contractual terms and in many settings including relationships governed by a written contract remains an implicit term i.e. it is not set out in writing.

The OP's son has the right to decline to make any payment but I would venture to suggest that were he to seek legal guidance he would be advised to pay up promptly before further costs were incurred and added to the damages. On the basis of what the OP has posted I can't envisage any reasonable legal advisor wanting to allow a case of this nature to proceed as far as court because the liability appears so clear.