Developers are found guilty of ignoring ‘foreseeable risks’ after man was killed when window pane fell from 25th floor
A group of companies involved in the design and construction of a London tower block have been found guilty after a falling window pane killed coach driver Mick Ferris in 2018. The case matters because the jury concluded that foreseeable safety risks connected to the building’s glazing had not been properly addressed.
Mr Ferris, 53, was returning to his coach near The Corniche on London’s Embankment when glass fell from the 25th-floor penthouse at about 10.40am on 2 October 2018. The pane fell around 300ft and crushed him; Foster + Partners, St James Group, Lindner Prater and Wintech were tried under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to discharge a duty.
- Firms found guilty after falling glass killed a coach driver.
- Mick Ferris was killed by glass falling 25 storeys.
- The case centred on foreseeable glazing safety risks.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The verdict appropriately reflects that building designers and contractors bear responsibility for foreseeable safety risks. High-rise glazing failures are well-known hazards in the industry, and these companies either failed to implement necessary safeguards during construction or failed to ensure building managers understood and could manage the risks. Holding them accountable encourages the industry to prioritise safety over cost-cutting and prevents the normalisation of preventable dangers.
The case against
Whilst the tragedy is devastating, building safety is a shared responsibility between designers, constructors, building owners, and ongoing management teams. After a building is completed and handed over, the owner and management company control maintenance and repairs, and are best positioned to identify and address degrading systems. Holding construction companies liable in perpetuity for risks that may emerge years later may create unreasonable liability that doesn't reflect where actual control and responsibility lie operationally.