Renfrew Golf Club has had their claim for damages against the manufacturer of an electronic golf trolley refused. Renfrew Golf Club claimed that defective wiring in a Motocaddy trolley caused a spark that started a fire and caused £500,000 worth of damage.
Discussion
The Golf Club argued that Motocaddy were liable for the damage in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in common law of negligence. They argued that the golf trolley was defective at the point of supply and that it was foreseeable that damage of this nature could occur. The Golf Club were unsuccessful in their action at first instance (see our earlier Insight), but sought to appeal that decision.
The Inner House of the Court of Session refused the Golf Club's appeal. The 1987 Act restricts liability to property in private use. The court decided that the clubhouse in question was not for private use as required. The court stated that as the club was for the "communal use...of a large number of members of the public", it was outside of the protection offered by the 1987 Act.
The Golf Club also sought to argue that Motocaddy were liable under the common law of negligence. The court rejected this argument, noting that the supplier of a golf trolley and the owner of a clubhouse did not have the proximity of relationship required to impose liability. In this instance it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Comment
There have been very few cases in Scotland dealing with application of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and so this case provides some useful discussion on the application or otherwise of the Act. That will be little consolation to the Golf Club in question, who will no doubt be counting the cost of the unsuccessful litigation.
The court noted that, while it might have been difficult for Motocaddy to obtain limitless product liability insurance, the Golf Club, as owners of the clubhouse, could have insured the premises with reasonable ease. Had the Golf Club had such an insurance policy in place, this litigation may not have been necessary. A reminder on the importance of such insurance cover.
You can read the full judgment here.
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.
