Kelly v. City of Edinburgh District Council [1982] ScotCS CSIH_2 (28 October 1982)

Kelly v. City of Edinburgh District Council [1982] ScotCS CSIH_2 (28 October 1982)

The pursuer failed to prove that the architects' design was one which no competent architect exercising ordinary care would have adopted. The British Standard Code of Practice was not mandatory and did not apply to the circumstances. The design was in common use and balanced foreseeable risks. Negligence was not established on the required legal standard.

Citation
[1982] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Kelly; Defender: Sir Frank Mears & Partners; Defender: City of Edinburgh District Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 October 1982
Procedural Posture
Delict (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Architect Liability, Foreseeability, Standard of Care, British Standard Code of Practice, Balcony Safety, Wired Glass, Building Design
Tort Professional Negligence Architect Liability Foreseeability Standard of Care British Standard Code of Practice Balcony Safety Wired Glass +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelly

Pursuer

Sir Frank Mears & Partners

Defender

City of Edinburgh District Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accident reasonably foreseeable by the architects?
  2. 2 Did the architects breach the standard of care owed to users of the balcony?
  3. 3 Does departure from the British Standard Code of Practice constitute negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the architects' design was one which no competent architect exercising ordinary care would have adopted. The British Standard Code of Practice was not mandatory and did not apply to the circumstances. The design was in common use and balanced foreseeable risks. Negligence was not established on the required legal standard.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Recall the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 17 August 1981
  • Assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the summons