Is there any basis in principle to sustain a tort action against the builder of a dangerously defective garden wall?

Manitoba, Canada


The following excerpt is from Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., 1993 CanLII 9342 (MB CA):

Although Lord Bridge raised questions as to whether Anns v. Merton London Borough was properly decided, it was not necessary for the purposes of the decision in the D & F Estates Ltd. case to overrule the Anns case. After noting that the manufacturer of a defective chattel is liable for economic loss only in contract and not in tort, Lord Bridge concluded that the same principle applies with respect to real property and a building contractor (at p. 1006): If the same principle applies in the field of real property to the liability of the builder of a permanent structure which is dangerously defective, that liability can only arise if the defect remains hidden until the defective structure causes personal injury or damage to property other than the structure itself. If the defect is discovered before any damage is done, the loss sustained by the owner of the structure, who has to repair or demolish it to avoid a potential source of danger to third parties, would seem to be purely economic. Thus, if I acquire a property with a dangerously defective garden wall which is attributable to the bad workmanship of the original builder, it is difficult to see any basis in principle on which I can sustain an action in tort against the builder for the cost of either repairing or demolishing the wall. No physical damage has been caused. All that has happened is that the defect in the wall has been discovered in time to prevent damage occurring. I do not find it necessary for the purpose of deciding the present appeal to express any concluded view as to how far, if at all, the ratio decidendi of Anns v. Merton London Borough, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492, [1978] A.C. 728, involves a departure from this principle establishing a new cause of action in negligence against a builder when the only damage alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff is the discovery of a defect in the very structure which the builder erected.

Other Questions


What are the implications of the principles laid down in Bird Construction principles for non-dangerous defects? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on the duty of a master to warn young and inexperienced people of the dangers of dangerous work in the workplace? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income on the basis of intentional underemployment or unemployment? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the test for oral evidence in a personal injury action? (Manitoba, Canada)
Can an action to overturn a conviction be brought as collateral attack? (Manitoba, Canada)
How have courts dealt with the issue of delay in an action for delay? (Manitoba, Canada)
Does the doctrine of mootness apply to an action or proceeding? (Manitoba, Canada)
What are the principles of fundamental justice in the extradition context? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the test for establishing that a defendant is not a party to a cause of action? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the current standard of conduct in a defamation action? (Manitoba, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.