Tort - Occupiers liability cases IV
In
Robert Addie v Dumbreck (1929) the defendants owned a piece of land adjacent to
their colliery. The land was fenced off but there were holes in the fences that
people could use to cut across to reach a railway station. The defendants had
warned them off on several occasions but no one paid any attention to their
warnings. One of the boys who entered the property climbed on to one of the
machines and fell off and was injured as a result. The matter was brought
before a court and it was held that there was no duty that was owed because the
boy was a trespasser and did not have any type of license, implied or
otherwise, to be on the property see also Edward v Railway Executive (1952).
In
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955) a young 7-year-old girl and her brother
aged 5 were walking together and entered the defendants land. The young boy
subsequently fell into a trench and was injured as a result. The parents sued.
The court held that the defendants were not occupiers in this instance, despite
having or retaining sufficient control of the property or the land, because the
accident was more the fault of the parents than the defendants. Children that
age should not be left alone or be allowed out on their own.
In
Roles v Nathan (1963) two brothers who were professional chimney sweeps were
employed to clean the flues in a building. An engineer was present and
monitored the carbon monoxide levels at all times.
While
they were cleaning the carbon monoxide levels increased and the engineer
ordered them to stop cleaning. The brothers refused and the engineer repeated
the order several times before he had them forcibly removed from the building
telling them not to return until the next day.
The
brothers returned later in the evening and were found dead in the morning.
Their widows sued. The court held that the occupiers were not liable. The
brothers were warned or cautioned on several occasions and they failed to heed
the warnings see also ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965).
In
Robson v Hallet (1967) a policeman had made his way into a property. Like the
postman and the meterman, policemen have implied permission to enter a property
especially if they suspect that a crime is taking place or is about to take
place. The policeman was subsequently told to leave and before he could do so
he was forceful evicted. An action was brought against the occupiers. The court
held that the policeman or any other member of the public who enters a property
in furtherance of a public duty had an implied license to do so. That license
may be revoked by the occupier but in such instances the licensee (the holder
of the license) should be given reasonable time to leave the property. The
plaintiffs were successful.
In
Harris v Birkenhead (1976) the plaintiff, a young girl aged 4 and her friend
were playing in a park when they decided to go for a walk and eventually made
their way into an abandoned house. The girls entered the house and walked up
the stairs and soon found themselves in front of a window. While they were
fiddling about, as children often do, the young girl fell out of the window and
as a result of the accident suffered serious injuries.
At
the time of the accident the house was in the control of the council which had
compulsorily purchased the property and the previous tenant had vacated the
property. The parents sued. The question before the courts was, given the
circumstances, who was the occupier of the premises? It was decided that the
party that had control of the house, premises or the property was the occupier.
The next question was whether the council had been negligent or if it had taken
the necessary steps to prevent the accident from occurring?
The
court held that the council owed children a duty of care especially with
regards to children who trespass on their property and therefore the council
were held to be liable or accountable.
Would
the situation have been different if the house was left secure and vandals had
broken into the property or the house had been secured on numerous occasions
but vandals kept breaking into the property and as a result the condition of
the house deteriorated? see Smith v Littlewoods Organization Ltd (1987).
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment