Posted By Stuart Williams Ian, I think you will find that the information you are looking for is in the Code of practice for Glazing for buildings BS 6262 Part 4 - Safety related to human impact. If you can't get hold of a copy please E mail me direct and I will forward you a copy Hope this helps, Stuart

Posted By Stuart Williams I believe that any replacement glazing in critical locations must be replaced in safety glass. (Refer to Consumer Safety Protection Act.) Regards, Stuart

Posted By Colin Womble Ian, You are right to be concerned and the authority will certainly owe a duty of care to the tenant. Where premises are let under a tenancy and the landlord is responsible for maintenance, there is a duty owed "to all persons" who might be affected by defects in the state of the premises under section 4(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972. This will undoubtedly include your tenant and his family. Secondly, the authority will owe a duty to under section 2 of the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 to people visiting the premises, such as friends, relatives etc. I believe there will also be an obligation to maintain and repair the structure under section 30 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985. The fact that people will receive injury, sometimes quite severe, from falling through ordinary glass (ie. non-safety glass) has been recognised for many years. British Standard 6262 'Code of Practice for Glazing in Buildings' was introduced in 1982 but its predecessors, in the form of British Standard 973 and CP 152 can be traced back to 1941, although I doubt the requirements for safety glass go back that far. British Standard 6202 'Specification for impact performance requirements for flat safety glass and safety plastics for use in buildings' from 1981 may also be of assistance. Similar requirements can now be found in the building regulations. The Building Research Establishment published a paper "Accidents involving glass in domestic doors and windows" highlighting the problems in October 1981. The courts have also recognised the need for safety glass in critical areas. The leading case that I am aware of is Rimmer -v- Liverpool City Council [The Times 15.12.1983] Here, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Liverpool City Council against damages awarded when Rimmer tripped over some toys left by his boy and put his left hand through a glass panel in December 1975. The Council were at fault for renting Rimmer a flat when they knew or ought to have known it contained foreseeably dangerous and easily substituted glass. More recently, a similar case came before the courts in O (A Minor) -v- Wilson CLY 99/4004. Here a boy aged 10 visiting the house ran into a door which smashed. His claim was dismissed on grounds that there was no requirement to replace the glass despite experts for both sides agreeing it was unsafe and even in the 1970's should have been toughened or laminated. The question of safety film does not appear to have been raised, nor is there any reference to Rimmer. As this is a decision at first instance, it cannot be relied upon for a defence to any claims. If your superiors think glass replacement or filming is expensive, Rimmer received £2,500 in 1983 and would undoubtedly receive much more today. Colin Womble Accident Investigator RT Accident Investigations