Builder damaged neighbours property - am I liable?

GDB2222

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

ThisIsWeird

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

Haven't looked at that, yet, but I am not surprised at that decision.

I think there needs to be a limit on the liability of the layman customer who employs a 'pro' - or someone professing to be a pro - for work on their house, in good faith.

You know me - I'm s'hot on such stuff, yeah? But, did I check or even ask for this of my just-found-around-the-corner builder when they built our extension a few years back? Nope. I knew he was a builder of repute, met the guy and was impressed by his ethics and attitude, employed him, and are now friends. Did it occur to me to ask for sight of PL insurance? It should have - yes - but it didn't even occur to me.

Yes, if a customer is careless, goes for a silly-cheap quote, takes on a door-knocker, or does anything patently 'careless' or 'reckless' when it comes to due diligence, then they should take some of the blame if/when it goes t-up. 

But, if you pass yourself off as a builder and you are a conman, then you should be nailed to the non-existent cross. And, if your customer has been careless or stupid, they should be tied to your feet.

moonboots89

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

That's exactly what I was hoping for, it does appear to conclusively answer the question of liability. Quite surprised that this was only decided last year! Thanks very much. 

moonboots89

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

Haven't looked at that, yet, but I am not surprised at that decision.

I think there needs to be a limit on the liability of the layman customer who employs a 'pro' - or someone professing to be a pro - for work on their house, in good faith.

You know me - I'm s'hot on such stuff, yeah? But, did I check or even ask for this of my just-found-around-the-corner builder when they built our extension a few years back? Nope. I knew he was a builder of repute, met the guy and was impressed by his ethics and attitude, employed him, and are now friends. Did it occur to me to ask for sight of PL insurance? It should have - yes - but it didn't even occur to me.

Yes, if a customer is careless, goes for a silly-cheap quote, takes on a door-knocker, or does anything patently 'careless' or 'reckless' when it comes to due diligence, then they should take some of the blame if/when it goes t-up. 

But, if you pass yourself off as a builder and you are a conman, then you should be nailed to the non-existent cross. And, if your customer has been careless or stupid, they should be tied to your feet.

Yes I do agree. In my case I hired a well known local firm with proper insurance but it's surprising to learn that your neighbour could hire a total cowboy who wrecks your house then disappears and you'd have no recourse whatsoever! 

penners324

You are liable, you then request your builder to pay, who then gets the Scaffolders pay. But only to put the boiler flue back on. That is all. If you can find anyone who'll do it without replacing the whole lot then you offer a token amount.

Certainly not the whole boiler.

Eldi_Dos

Do not know if this a valid comparison but

If your vehicle caused damage to neighbours vehicles bodywork and it had to go in for repair, while in garage it needed a MOT and failed, I know who most people would say pays to get work done for to pass MOT.

nottsphil

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

Why would it surprise people?

If you ordered a private hire vehicle for a journey on which the driver caused a serious injury to a third party, would you be surprised to find that you have no liability?

ThisIsWeird

Eldi_Dos said:

Do not know if this a valid comparison but

If your vehicle caused damage to neighbours vehicles bodywork and it had to go in for repair, while in garage it needed a MOT and failed, I know who most people would say pays to get work done for to pass MOT.

I was trying to think of a comparison, and the only 'car' one was; imagine if this had been a classic car, for which spares were no longer available. The roofer drops a scaffold tube and smashes, say, an irreplaceable rear light cluster. Would the roofer be liable for a whole new car!

FreeBear

ThisIsWeird said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Do not know if this a valid comparison but

If your vehicle caused damage to neighbours vehicles bodywork and it had to go in for repair, while in garage it needed a MOT and failed, I know who most people would say pays to get work done for to pass MOT.

I was trying to think of a comparison, and the only 'car' one was; imagine if this had been a classic car, for which spares were no longer available. The roofer drops a scaffold tube and smashes, say, an irreplaceable rear light cluster. Would the roofer be liable for a whole new car!

No. Because even for obscure "classics" there is invariably spares available. And even if a spare proved to be unobtainable, something else could be pressed in to service to allow the car to be used. The car would not be condemned as a result of using a nonstandard (or original) part.

ThisIsWeird

FreeBear said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Do not know if this a valid comparison but

If your vehicle caused damage to neighbours vehicles bodywork and it had to go in for repair, while in garage it needed a MOT and failed, I know who most people would say pays to get work done for to pass MOT.

I was trying to think of a comparison, and the only 'car' one was; imagine if this had been a classic car, for which spares were no longer available. The roofer drops a scaffold tube and smashes, say, an irreplaceable rear light cluster. Would the roofer be liable for a whole new car!

No. Because even for obscure "classics" there is invariably spares available. And even if a spare proved to be unobtainable, something else could be pressed in to service to allow the car to be used. The car would not be condemned as a result of using a nonstandard (or original) part.

But you just shot my analogy by changing the parameters. 
I said if a replacement light cluster did not exist. 
By your get-out, the solution to the OP's problem is 'there is invariably spares available..."
Which is most likely the case. 
So fair point... :-(