The situation of Emma and Silverline Construction Ltd presents a compelling case of an individual suffering physical injuries due to the work of a party with which she did not have any previous connection or contractual relationship. The issue lies in the absence of any regulations that would otherwise have been outlined in a contract or a similar document. Emma’s particular trauma was not covered under the agreement between Silverline Construction Ltd and its employer. However, this does not mean that Emma does not have the right to argue that the company was negligent in its actions.
This case falls under the area of tort law dealing with negligence during construction, manufacturing, or quality assessment. The company could have predicted possible accidents which would follow the installation of faulty fixings. It also failed to evaluate the quality of materials adequately and exposed Emma, as well as other potential victims, to harm. Emma can find a cause of action in negligence against the company. Moreover, as a plaintiff, she has a right to claim a number of losses, including medical treatment costs, salary reimbursement, and emotional damages for pain and suffering.
It is necessary to show that Silverline Construction Ltd had a duty to other persons, including Emma, to exercise reasonable care. As the company was employed to construct a building near the city center, it became liable for the safety of all passersby in relation to the finished structure. While one could argue that Silverline Construction Ltd’s responsibility for the construction site should have ended with the project being finished and presented to the employer, multiple cases show that this is not correct, as the builder or manufacturer remains responsible for its finished product even after completion.
One such case reveals the responsibilities that a manufacturer can have for supplying its clients with faulty equipment (Uren v. Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd (2011) EWCA Civ 66). In this case, a firm that produced equipment for pools became a defendant alongside the company that used their goods in the pool. Since Silverline Construction Ltd may be considered the party that used faulty materials in its construction, it becomes liable for the result. It is possible to assume that the original contract signed by the employer and the builder included such regulations as to the safety and suitability of the finished project as well as its adequate quality. Therefore, Silverline Construction Ltd did not fulfill its duty to others and failed to deliver a satisfactory result.
In this situation, Silverline Construction Ltd could appeal to hold the company manufacturing these goods liable for the accident. Nevertheless, the construction company is still at fault due to their failure to detect the problem in a timely manner. Another cause may be considered, one where both the construction company and the manufacturer failed to assess the quality of the products which led to various injuries for the employer (James Elliott Construction Ltd v. Irish Asphalt Ltd (2014) IESC 74). It is clear that the manufacturer of the fixings used in this building did not follow the standard of production of these goods. In addition, the company chose to sell these products without a full quality check, an action that contributed to the accident at hand. In Uren v. Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd, the plaintiff sues both the employing company and the manufacturer for the inflicted traumas, as both defendants breached the duty to the plaintiff, due to their lack of ensuring the participants’ safety.
Silverline Construction Ltd failed to perform necessary evaluations prior to using the materials in its project. As testing that was conducted after the plaintiff’s claims showed that the fixings were faulty, it may be assumed that the construction company could have prevented the accident by performing more rigorous tests. The responsibility for the quality of the goods cannot be shifted from the firm on the basis of production in addition to other external sources. The inability of Silverline Construction Ltd to predict or investigate that the materials could become hazardous to people shows a lack of reasonable care that should have been considered by the company prior to finishing and approving the project (Johnstone v. Amec Construction Ltd (2010) ScotCS CSIH_57).
While it is vital to prove that the company had to be able to foresee the possible accidents caused by their actions in order to become liable, some cases show that the precise outcomes of some situations are not always clear. Despite this, their causes and the general chain of events can become signs of future issues (Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) UKHL 8). Therefore, if one can prove that Silverline Construction Ltd acted out of negligence by simply purchasing or choosing to use faulty materials without proper testing, then it should have predicted that many accidents might arise because of its actions. Claiming that the firm did not know about the quality of its materials would not help the company as it would be expected to answer for the final product because such considerations are usually a part of any contract.
As a result of Silverline Construction Ltd not performing a necessary evaluation, Emma suffered a number of losses. She was physically injured, which led to her being unable to participate in any of her work responsibilities. Due to this, she also suffered financially and emotionally, including pain from the injury and mental discomfort from being unable to perform her daily activities. The case of Bowen Construction Ltd states that third parties have the right to claim for the loss even though they do not participate in the contract (Bowen Construction Ltd v. Kelcar Developments Ltd (2009) IEHC 467; Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited v. Panatown Limited (2000) UKHL 43). This is to avoid injustice for those who are able to prove sufficient loss. Emma can show that she was traumatized as a result of this accident. She likely has medical bills that would explain her injuries and witnesses that would describe the situation from an outsider’s point of view. In addition, her leave from work was most likely documented as well. Thus, she has the necessary information to find the company negligent and claim losses.
The case of Emma and Silverline Construction Ltd can become an example of an accident where an individual that was not included in any contractual obligations suffers from the negligent actions of one of the parties. Emma’s arguments should be based on the duty of the company to be responsible for others and deliver a reasonable amount of care. The company was contractually obligated to build a product of high quality, and it is safe to assume that this would include all materials and their functioning. Furthermore, Emma has enough evidence to present sufficient losses from the accident and claim remedies for physical injury, financial losses, and emotional distress.
Reference List
Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited v. Panatown Limited (2000) UKHL 43.
Bowen Construction Ltd v. Kelcar Developments Ltd (2009) IEHC 467.
Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) UKHL 8.
James Elliott Construction Ltd v. Irish Asphalt Ltd (2014) IESC 74.
Johnstone v. Amec Construction Ltd (2010) ScotCS CSIH_57.
Uren v. Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd (2011) EWCA Civ 66.