National Grid Gas Plc v Stanley Stores (Strathclyde) Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_94 (26 June 2008)

National Grid Gas Plc v Stanley Stores (Strathclyde) Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_94 (26 June 2008)

The defenders, having knowledge of gas pipes on site and having received repeated warnings and safety advice, owed a duty of care to avoid damaging the supply. Their failure to notify the pursuers, mark out the pipe, and locate it by hand digging before using heavy plant constituted a breach of duty. Reliance on rough maps and verbal indications was unreasonable. The defenders are liable in reparation; contributory negligence is rejected.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_94
Parties
Pursuer: National Grid Gas Plc; Defender: Stanley Stores (Strathclyde) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Defenders found liable in reparation; decree granted in terms of joint minute; pursuers' second plea-in-law sustained; defenders' pleas repelled.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Damage to Underground Utilities, Site Safety, Reparation, Contributory Negligence
Tort Negligence Property Construction Duty of Care Damage to Underground Utilities Site Safety Reparation +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Grid Gas Plc

Pursuer

Stanley Stores (Strathclyde) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defenders owe a duty of care to avoid damaging gas pipes during site works?
  2. 2 Did the defenders breach that duty by failing to notify the pursuers and locate pipes before excavation?
  3. 3 Was the defenders' reliance on rough maps and verbal indications reasonable?

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, having knowledge of gas pipes on site and having received repeated warnings and safety advice, owed a duty of care to avoid damaging the supply. Their failure to notify the pursuers, mark out the pipe, and locate it by hand digging before using heavy plant constituted a breach of duty. Reliance on rough maps and verbal indications was unreasonable. The defenders are liable in reparation; contributory negligence is rejected.

Court Disposition

Defenders found liable in reparation; decree granted in terms of joint minute; pursuers' second plea-in-law sustained; defenders' pleas repelled.

Orders

  • Decree in terms of joint minute sustaining pursuers' second plea-in-law and third pro tanto.
  • Defenders' first to fifth pleas-in-law repelled; sixth pro tanto sustained in respect of joint minute.