Tort - Occupiers liability cases VIII
In
Bottomley v Todmorden (2003) the defendants, a cricket club, organized a show
and part of the show was a fireworks display. During the show, the contractors
in charge of the fireworks display called upon the plaintiff to light one of
the fireworks, a particularly large mortar and when the plaintiff set the mortar
alight, it exploded and as a result the plaintiff sustained or incurred
injuries. The plaintiff sued see Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS
Trust (2002). The court held that an organizer was liable or accountable for
not selecting a reasonably competent contractor.
Occupiers
could at times employ others to carry out acts that are normally considered or
deemed to be dangerous provided that the contractors that they employed to
carry out the tasks or duties exercised due care and caution. The defendants
were held to owe the plaintiff a duty of care.
In
Atkins v Butlin’s Skyline Ltd (2005) the plaintiff was blind and he was
holidaying with his wife and daughter at the time. The plaintiff entered a lift
and when he had reached the correct floor, before he could completely walk out,
the lift doors closed on him, injuring him in the arm and shoulders. The
plaintiff sued. The court held that those who operated lifts and had other
public amenities on their premises had to take into account the needs of people
with disabilities.
In
Maguire v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (2006) the defendants operated a
leisure center that had exercise machines for public use. The plaintiff was a
paying visitor who used an exercise machine and because the machine was faulty
or defective the plaintiff was injured.
The
maintenance of the machine was contracted to a third party who was under a duty
to ensure that the machines were in proper working order. The plaintiff sued.
The court held that the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 imposed a common law duty
and that there was an implied warranty that the machines could be safely used
for the purposes that they were intended.
In
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) the plaintiff was playing on the
grounds of a student accommodation owned by the defendants. The grounds were
frequently used by members of the public to have access to a hospital. There
were two fire escapes close to the accommodation one with bars on it and the
other without.
The
plaintiff, aged 11 at the time, climbed the fire escape in order to show his
friends how it was done and while doing so slipped and fell and as a result,
sustained severe injuries, including brain damage, which prompted him to commit
various sexual offences see Meah v McCreamer (No. 1) (1985).
An
action was brought in court for compensation. Does a fire escape constitute a
premises? The court decided that fire escapes constituted a premises in the
ordinary sense of the word.
The
court also considered if it was possible to impose a duty with regards to
children when no such duty would have been imposed on adults.
In
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited it was decided that A duty will only
be imposed on a defendant with regards to a trespasser under s1(3) of the
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 when it was reasonable to do so. In Swain v Natui
Ram Puri (1996) the court considered the duty that was owed to a child
trespasser and decided that a duty would only arise if under the circumstances
it was reasonable to impose a duty. Could the defendants in the present case
have anticipated that a 11-year-old boy would climb a fire escape in the manner
that he did even if the defendants knew that the grounds were frequently used
by children? The court held that the defendant was not liable.
In
Siddorn v Patel and others (2007) the plaintiff was injured when she fell
through a skylight while she was dancing on a garage roof. The plaintiff
brought an action against her landlord under s(1)(3)(b) of the Occupiers
Liability Act 1984. The garage though owned by her landlord was not a part of
her tenancy and the landlord had never given the plaintiff any permission to be
on the roof of his garage. The court had to once again consider the duty that
was owed to a trespasser.
The
court held that the risk of someone dancing on the roof of a garage was not
something that was foreseeable and the roof was used in a manner or for
purposes that it was not intended or supposed to be used. The defendant was
held to be not liable.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment