Tort - Occupiers liability cases V
In
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) the defendants owned a botanical garden
that was open to the public. One of the visitors, a young boy aged 7 ate some
of the berries that grew on one of the shrubs that were on display and
subsequently died as a result. The parents sued. The court held that the
defendants, the owners and operators of the botanical garden were liable and
that they had failed to take adequate steps or measures to protect children
from harm that was foreseeable.
Children
especially those who grow up in the country or in regional areas, where berry
shrubs grow in the wild, are prone to plucking berries off shrubs and eating
them and it’s fairly obvious that a child aged 7 would not be able to
distinguish between berries that were edible and berries that were not. The
council was held to be liable, see also Harris v Birkenhead (1976).
In
Videan v British Transport Commission (1963) a 6-year boy somehow managed to
make his way on to a railway track and his father the stationmaster attempted
to rescue him and was killed while trying to do so. He however managed to save
the boy.
His
estate sued for his death and for the injuries and mental distress that his son
suffered. The court held that the estate was entitled to claim for the father’s
death but was not entitled to claim for the injuries and mental distress of the
son. The court decided that the child was a trespasser and therefore was not
entitled to be compensated, see also Robert Addie v Dumbreck (1929).
In
British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) a 6-year-old boy made his way
through a part of a fence that was pushed down which was normally used as a
short cut to the railway station and was electrocuted. The parents sued.
If
the rule in Robert Addie v Dumbreck (1929), Edward v Railway Executive (1952)
and Videan v British Transport Commission (1963) had been strictly applied the
parents would not have been granted any compensation because the boy was a
trespasser and did not have an implied license to be on the track but the court
was prepared to depart from the previous decisions and the parents were
successful.
Clearly
there has to be a line drawn somewhere, in accidents involving children, to
determine how much of the blame is to be attributed to the parents and how much
of the blame is to be attributed to the respective authority.
In
Simkiss v Rhondda BC (1983) a father left his children to play around or close
to a mound of earth. The children subsequently climbed on to the mound and fell
off and were injured as a result. The father brought an action against the
council and claimed damages for the injuries sustained. The court applying the
common-sense approach denied the father’s claim on the grounds that children
should not be left unattended and unaccompanied see also Bourne Leisure Ltd v
Marsden (2009) and Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National
Park Authority (2014).
In
Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants (1983) we examine the duty that is owed to a
fireman with regards to occupiers liability. The defendant was the owner of a
fish and chips shop and one night before he closed for the day he forgot to
turn off the fire on his stove and as a result the fire spread to the rest of
the building and the fire brigade had to be called in to put it out.
The
plaintiff was a fireman who was on a ladder and as a result of an explosion
that occurred because of the fire was thrown to the ground and thereby
sustained injuries. The plaintiff sued. The defendant argued that as per
s2(3)(b) of the Occupiers Liabilities Act 1957 he should not be held
accountable or liable. S2(3)(b) states that “an occupier may expect that a
person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any
special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free
to do so”.
The
court held that the defendant was liable. The duty owed to a fireman was
similar to a duty that was owed in negligence. Does a ladder constitute a
premises for the purposes of the Occupiers Liabilities Act 1957? It would
appear so. In Wheeler v Copas (1981) it was held that a ladder could constitute
a premises.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment