Cases - Clay v Crump

Record details

Name

Clay v Crump

Date

[1963]

Citation

3 WLR 866

Keywords

Contract administration

Summary

The defendant architect was employed to supervise a demolition and building operation. The demolition contractors left a wall in an unsafe condition. The architect should have known it was unsafe, but he failed to examine it properly and instructed that it should be left (relying on the demolition contractors). When the building contractors came on site they assumed that the architect considered the wall to be safe. The wall subsequently collapsed, injuring one of the building contractor's employees who brought the claim against (among others) the architect.

The architect was found liable to the claimant (distinguishing Clayton v Woodman) because he was within the class of person who might be expected to be affected by the architect's negligent breach of duty. The architect knew (or should have known) that the building contractors would not examine the wall closely.

The difference between this case and Clayton v Woodman is that here the architect gave a positive instruction which was negligent. In Clayton v Woodman the architect simply declined to alter the specification (and was not required to do so).