The recent case of Renfrew Golf Club v Motocaddy Limited [2015] CSOH 173 considered whether damages of over £500,000 were recoverable for loss arising from extensive damage caused to the clubhouse, when a golf trolley supplied by Motocaddy Limited caught fire in the male locker room of the clubhouse.
Background
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 sections 2(2)(b) and (c) contains provisions relating to liability for defective products. The Club argued that under these provisions, Motocaddy were liable to them as they held themselves out to be the producer and as the importer of the defective trolley. There was no fuse on the model of the golf trolley, no over temperature cut off or no short circuit protection. The unit was at risk of catching fire in the event of motor stall and severe risk of catching fire in the event of a short circuit.
The Club argued that the trolley had been used throughout its life for its ordinary purpose as use on a golf course such as Renfrew Golf Club. It was reasonably foreseeable that if the trolley caught fire it could damage such property. The Club argued the defects were discoverable upon reasonable examination and no supplier in the position of Motocaddy acting with ordinary skill and care would have failed to carry out such an examination. The damage sustained by the Club was of the type reasonably foreseeable to Motocaddy as a result of their omissions. The Club were so closely and directly affected by the acts of Motocaddy that they ought to have had the Club in their contemplation. Their failure to fulfil the duties incumbent upon them resulted in loss and damage to the Club.
Discussion
Motocaddy argued that they were not liable in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 under sections 5(3)(a) and (b) since the property damaged could not be described as ordinarily intended for private use, occupation or consumption, as provided for in the legislation. This argument was successful. The clubhouse was used for economic activity and the damage was therefore not recoverable.
The Club's negligence case also failed. There were a large number of factors leading to the fire over which Motocaddy had no control. Motocaddy had no control over the maintenance of the trolley, or over the three years in which it had been in the golf club member's possession. Motocaddy had also no control where the trolley was left on the night of the fire. There was no direct connection between Motocaddy's alleged failure to inspect and the events leading to the fire.
It was accepted that it was foreseeable that if the trolley were to catch fire, damage would be caused, but it was not foreseeable that damage to any third party would be involved. The Club's claim took liability for the property damage beyond the consumer of the product. There was a great distance between Motocaddy's alleged failure and the fire and it was not "fair, just or reasonable" to impose the duty of care contended for by the Club.
Comment
This is another interesting example of a case in which the court has not been willing to stretch the proximity and foreseeability principle and concluded that no duty of care was owed. The judge considered the key case of Caparo Industries v Dickman which stemmed from a group of shareholders and investors who sought to sue an accountancy firm for loss caused by negligently audited accounts. The House of Lords ruled that no duty of care was owed by the auditors to existing shareholders or future investors. In respect of the latter, there could not be a duty owed in respect of "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class". However, ranging from the context of corporate deals to golf clubs, negligence cases are frequently argued in court, and whether to pursue or defend a claim requires specialist advice.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
