Water leak liability...
Discussion
Generally flats would be leased so it sits with the Landlord. The landlord would have the insurance policy under building. Lessors will have contents policies which will cover damaged goods. The chain will ultimately go back via the landlord to the tenant that had the leak if they were negligent.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Funnily enough, that subject is one of the pivotal case laws defining negligence from 100 years ago.In terms of the car scenario, even if you were at the wheel and had a heart attack for example, and you slumped over the wheel ran someone over, in law, you are not negligent.
If you had a heart attack at the wheel and hit a third party, then assuming you weren't driving against medical advice and the heart attack came out of the blue, you would not be negligent and your insurers would not pay the third party claim.
Same with mechanical failure, if it could be proved after the accident, which isn't always easy. And it depends on the mechanical failure. Eg, you have some kind of mechanical issue, you freak out, and hit another car. A better driver may have dealt with the situation without crashing. Hence you could still be negligent and liable.
Same with mechanical failure, if it could be proved after the accident, which isn't always easy. And it depends on the mechanical failure. Eg, you have some kind of mechanical issue, you freak out, and hit another car. A better driver may have dealt with the situation without crashing. Hence you could still be negligent and liable.
tenpenceshort said:
In the interest of neighbourly relations I'd expect many folk would contribute had they felt responsible, though.
But the point is they aren't responsible. They could be at the top of a 20 story block of flats, and have a burst pipe when they were away for the weekend, which could cause hundreds of thousands worth of damage to all the flats below. They can't be expected to cough up for that if they did nothing wrong. 
JustinP1 said:
It depends - if it's not negligence, why in law is someone 'liable'?
Under strict liability, nuisance, etc. Negligence is not the only tort.ETA: sorry, this is a mildly academic answer because I don't think it helps cmoose. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher may appear to apply, but there's been subsequent case law specifically regarding a burst pipe in a block of flats (a main pipe in the communal area, rather than a tenant's pipe) which decided that it wasn't an unnatural use and therefore not a legal nuisance when it burst.
Edited by Jobbo on Thursday 3rd July 15:56
Jobbo said:
JustinP1 said:
It depends - if it's not negligence, why in law is someone 'liable'?
Under strict liability, nuisance, etc. Negligence is not the only tort.ETA: sorry, this is a mildly academic answer because I don't think it helps cmoose. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher may appear to apply, but there's been subsequent case law specifically regarding a burst pipe in a block of flats (a main pipe in the communal area, rather than a tenant's pipe) which decided that it wasn't an unnatural use and therefore not a legal nuisance when it burst.
Edited by Jobbo on Thursday 3rd July 15:56
What I was getting at is suggesting the individual circumstances of the case will depend on the liability.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you google the barrister's name, you'll find he practises in Ireland. Take care what you find when you google.The House of Lords case, Transco v. Stockport MBC [2003] is the case I was referring to. Here's an article on it: http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/vie...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you crash into something in your car you've been negligent, unless there's a reason for the accident that might absolve you. Your insurance covers third parties against your negligence. If your insurer thinks you haven't been negligent, they won't pay the third party.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed, but if the main supply pipe for the block isn't an unnatural use of the land, there's no way an individual supply to one flat can be an unnatural use. And it's the unnatural use which you need to prove to rely on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (which effectively creates strict liability for any escape, but only for unnatural uses of the land).Take Rylands v. Fletcher out of the equation and you've got to rely on negligence.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If they have done nothing wrong, why should they be responsible? It's nothing to do with intention. No accident is intentional, that's the meaning of the word accident. If you are negligent and have an accident, you are liable for tp damage. If you aren't negligent, you're not.(some legal exceptions, such as strict liability, vicarious liability, apply to certain specific things, like accidents to employees at work)
Drawing analogies with car insurance isn't helpful, though - motor insurers act commercially where it might be cheaper to settle than investigate liability. So you might get a settlement where someone hasn't been negligent (such as that chap on here with the Cayenne whose car was scratched by a tent which flew away), but that does not have any bearing on your original question about water leaks.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Unless it is a situation where strict liability applies then you can not be liable unless you were negligent.If a driver of previous good health and with no advance warning suffers a heart attack and crashes into another car then they are not liable for the damage to that car as they have not been negligent.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff