The area of law is negligence specifically liability of the occupier of premise to ……………
The obligations of the occupier for damage which occurs on his premises depend on the character of the entrant
Lawful visitors
Contractual visitor– a person who comes into the premises in pursuance of a contract with the occupier. The duty owed to them is that his premises are as safe for the purposes of the contract as reasonable care and skill on the part of anyone can make them. Frances v cockrell
Where the occupier could not have discovered the defect even by the exercise of reasonable care, there is no liability-Gilmore v LCC. The defendant joined a physical training class organized by the defendant for a small fee while engaging in one of the exercises the plaintiff slipped and suffered injury. It was held that the duty of the council was to provide a floor which was reasonably safe in the circumstances and they failed.
This duty does not apply to the external part of the premises- bell v travco hotels. The plaintiff fell and suffered injuries while walking down the quarter mile drive way which was the only road for pedestrians to and from the hotel. He sued that the defendant failed to warn her an invitee of any unusual danger on their premises. It was held that the principal of the duty of an occupier was relevant only to the interior premises.
Invitee– a person who comes into the premises for purpose in which both visitor and occupier have mutual economic or business interest. The duty owed to them is to prevent injury from unusual danger which he knows or ought to have known.
Indemaur v dames. The plaintiff went to the defendant’s premises to examine several burners and to test the apparatus they had fixed on the defendant’s premises. He fell through a hole accidentally without any fault or negligence on his part and was injured. The hole was used by the defendant in connection with his sugar business. It was held that the hole was unreasonably dangerous to persons not usually employed upon the premises but having a right to be there the defendant was guilty of a breach of duty towards the plaintiff in failing to have the hole fenced.
The law protects the invitee as long as he keeps within the limits of his invitation-walker v midland. A guest in an inn, the property of respondent company, left his bedroom in the middle of the night to go to a water-closet. There were properly lighted and easily accessible closets in the same corridor, but he went into a dark ‘service room’ the door of which was shut but not locked, and fell down the unguarded well of a lift at the end of the room and was killed. It was held that the general duty of an innkeeper to take proper care for the safety of his guests does not extend to every room in his house, at all hours of night or day, but must be limited to those places into which guests may be reasonably supposed to be likely to go, in a reasonable belief that they are entitled or invited to do so
Pearson v coleman. A child, visiting the circus, left the tent to relieve herself. She passed the lions’ runway, where she was mauled. She sought damages for personal injury.it was held that the only people invited into that enclosure were those who came through the proper entrance. However, having entered the circus as an invitee, and there being no proper facilities, it was foreseeable that a child would not take heed of the warnings, and for this purpose she was an invitee. The circus was liable in negligence.
NOTE- the same duty is owed to visitors who enter as of right
Licensee– a person who comes into the premises for social reason with permission (express or implied) of the occupier. The duty owed is to warn the licensee of concealed dangers actually known to him and not to the licensee or obvious to him. Fairman v perpetual investment building. The plaintiff lodged in a flat let out by the defendant with her sister on the fourth floor. Her sister’s husband was the tenant. While descending the stairs, she caught her heel in a depression fell and was injured. It was held that as a licensee the only duty owed to her is to not expose her to concealed dangers or traps and that the action failed because that danger was obvious.
He has a duty to warn them of new dangers created by him-lowery v walker. The defendant did not prevent the public from crossing his field in the way to the railway station. He put a horse in the field which was to his knowledge savage and it attacked and injured the plaintiff. Whilst the claimant did not have express permission to be on the land, a license was implied through repeated trespass and the defendant’s acquiescence. By failing to warn the plaintiff of the new danger he had breached his duty.
If a danger is not known to an occupier then no duty id owed to him-morgan v girls’ society. Plaintiff was on his way to visit the tenants of offices in a building owned by the defendants. The door leading to the left was partially open, and the plaintiff thinking that the lift was there, stepped through the door, fell down the shaft and was injured. In an action for damages for the injuries received the defendants contended that they had contracted with independent contractors to keep the lift in good working order, and that they did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the lift was out of order. They employed people who knew better than they about lifts. I do not think the defendants were guilty of any default. In this case the defendants created no trap. The trap was not discovered by the people who ought to have discovered it. No concealed danger existed of which they knew or ought to have known, because they employed competent people to advise them.
Unlawful visitors
Trespassers
There is no duty of care owed to the trespasser except not to inflict deliberate harm or should not act in reckless disregard of trespasser’s presence if known-addie v dumbreck.
However the occupier owes a duty of common humanity-herrington v british railway board. The child had got through a gap in the fence near the railway line. The board, as occupiers, were aware of previous trespasses but had failed to maintain the integrity of the fence. The board was held liable for injuries to a six year old child who had been playing on the railway line. The House of Lords held that the occupier of the railway premises owed a duty of common humanity to the child. Until this case no duty of care was owed to trespassers.
The duty does not arise until the occupier has actual knowledge either of the presence of the trespasser or facts which makes it likely that the trespasser would come on his land
The duty is to take reasonable steps to enable the trespasser avoid the danger-pannett v mcguiness & Co