Regarding the refrigerator. I am trying to remember the case. It was a motorist who was hurt on a roundabout. There were overgrown bushes and it was hard to see oncoming traffic. An accident occurs. The motorist sues for negligence - saying the Council should have kept them trimmed.
Now a couple of things come in here. First of all there was no argument that the Council was responsible for maintenance of the roundabout. But there is a condition known as Public Policy. Put plainly, there are limits to what can be done with limited resources, and limits to what can be reasonably foreseen.
It was ruled that, of course, the Council should have foreseen that these overgrown bushes could occlude line of sight. But it was also aknowledged that the Council had nowhere near the resources to keep every single junction perfectly clear.
What was required was that the Council have a plan - due diligence. They had indeed a system of inspection and allocation. The claimant lost.
Now applying this to Grenfell. I think regarding fire safety that the possibility of a fire in a tower block is almost a given. A chip pan. A refrigerator. What can the powers that be do about it? And what should they be responsible for?
Too, what type of measure will we use to judge the actions of management. If we hold them to a subjective standard, those warnings from the occupants will be important, as will correspondence from all parties. The threat was flagged and noted. They knew.
Objectively, this doesn't so much matter - we are back to what a reasonably competant fire safety person/system should see coming.
I am still of the view that any sane engineer, architect, fire safety inspector should have known that fire is very possible in a tower. Be it from a chip pan, refrigerator or old wiring.
Going back to Wagonmound - the stakes are very high, many people could die.
So when the decision was made to use this cladding, there would certainly, it seems to me - given that fire is likely at some point, and that the stakes are high - and that the savings using the cheap flammable panels were small (ruling out Public Policy) - a breach of duty of care.