Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello and thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practising lawyer in England with over 15 years’ experience. Please be aware that although I will endeavour to reply to you promptly, I am also in full time private practice and so I may not be available to respond immediately and it may also take me a few minutes to prepare a reply. The site will notify you as soon as I respond. I look forward to working with you to answer your question fully.
I am very sorry to read of the above and I imagine how frustrating it must be. I will certainly try to clarify the position for you.
thank you. Based on what you describe, as the contractor was retained by the property owner, as you suggest, the property owner is vicariously liable for their actions whilst carrying out work to the property. In point of fact the property owner would have a claim against the contractor in question for negligence and could in this way seek to pass on any damages they are forced to pay you but that is a matter as between them and their contractor. You could also bring a claim directly against the contractor on the same basis but it is likely to be simpler to pursue the homeowner for among other reasons, the reasons you refer to above.
obviously, negotiation should be the principal basis on which you should seek to settle this matter which from what you say, you are presently undertaking but if this fails, ultimately you can bring a claim against the company in the County Court for the damage that was caused to your vehicle together with interest at 8% per annum and court fees:
What evidence do you have that the the property is to be let?
thank you. It is not clear to me the importance of proving the activity on the land as a commercial enterprise. A homeowner, be it a private individual or a company can be vicariously liable for its contractors where the contractors damage neighbours property under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
I hope the above is of some assistance but if you have any further questions, please revert to me.
It is not my understanding that the rule is limited to neighbouring landowners. The Rylands rule is "that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".
I trust the above was of assistance and that you do not have any follow up questions for now. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me though.
Thank you again for visiting JustAnswer and see you again in the future I hope.
I am sorry to read of the above. There is no indication that what was discussed above is not still good law according to a leading legal law library commentary on the matter. Unfortunately there is insufficient information above as regards ***** ***** for me to comment further including the case reference you cite which appear to have been cut off.