About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 Managerial L. 1 (1966-1967)

handle is hein.journals/ijlm1 and id is 1 raw text is: SIMS v. FOSTER WHEELER LTD. AND ANOTHER COURT OF APPEAL Willmer L.J., Russell L.J. and Scarman J. SIMS v. FOSTER WHEELER LTD. AND ANOTHER March 4, 1966 Damages - Remoteness - Breach of warranty by sub- contractors to contractors to provide suitable scaffolding - Concurrent breach of statutory duty by contractors to plaintiff's husband to see that suitable scaffolding provided - Fatal injury to plaintiff's husband - Contractors liable in tort to plaintiff - Whether damages 'flowing from breach - Whether rights under warranty affected. S. was employed by F. Ltd., the first defendants, in certain construction work for which they were the main contractors. They had sub-contracted part of that work to P. Ltd., who in turn had sub-contracted part of that work, including the erection of certain scaffolding, to the second defendants, C. G. Ltd. The scaffolding was defective, and collapsed, and S. was fatally injured. In an action under the Fatal Accidents Acts the plaintiff, S. 's widow, was awarded damages against both F. Ltd. and C. G. Ltd., in the pro- Portion of 25 and 75 per cent., on the basis that both had been guilty of breaches of statutory duty, F. Ltd. in failing to see that suitable scaffolding was provided, under regulation 21 of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948, and C. G. Ltd, in failing to provide suitable scaffolding, under regulation 7. F, Ltd. now brought third party proceedings against P. Ltd. contending that P. Ltd. had been in breach of a contractual obligation contained in the sub-contract between them that the scaffolding should be of suitable and sound construction. Paull J. held that P. Ltd. were under no such obligation. F. Ltd. appealed. On the appeal, P. Ltd. con- tended that, should F. Ltd. establish that they, P. Ltd., had been in breach of a contractual obligation as alleged, nevertheless F. Ltd. would not be entitled to damages, since the damage which they had sustained, namely, the damages and costs which they had had 1