Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#cases #occupiers-liability #tort
Question
Facts: The defendants were the owners of a pub. They granted Mr and Mrs Richardson, the manager and his wife, a licence to use the top floor of the premises for their private accommodation and to take in paying guests. The plaintiff and her husband were paying guests. The husband was fatally injured while using the staircase which had a faulty hand rail. He could not see this as the area had no lighting (the light bulb was missing). The question arose as to who was in occupation of the stairs on which the plaintiff was injured, for the purpose of a claim in occupiers’ liability.
The court held that both the defendant owners and Mr and Mrs Richardson were occupiers and that both therefore owed a duty of care. In the event, neither were liable because the fatality was caused partly as a result of a light bulb having been removed by a third party, over which the occupiers had no control. So the claim failed at the legal causation stage. Lord Denning’s description of the occupier being any person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises remains the key test for determining the occupier. Note the four specific examples of the occupier that Lord Denning provides. As to his fourth example, Lord Denning states that generally the occupier will remain responsible if he hires independent contractors. It is, however, possible for independent contractors to be occupiers or to be dual occupiers (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1028). Where no-one has sufficient control over the premises, the claim in occupiers’ liability will necessarily fail, as it did in the next case.
Answer
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [1966] AC 552

Tags
#cases #occupiers-liability #tort
Question
Facts: The defendants were the owners of a pub. They granted Mr and Mrs Richardson, the manager and his wife, a licence to use the top floor of the premises for their private accommodation and to take in paying guests. The plaintiff and her husband were paying guests. The husband was fatally injured while using the staircase which had a faulty hand rail. He could not see this as the area had no lighting (the light bulb was missing). The question arose as to who was in occupation of the stairs on which the plaintiff was injured, for the purpose of a claim in occupiers’ liability.
The court held that both the defendant owners and Mr and Mrs Richardson were occupiers and that both therefore owed a duty of care. In the event, neither were liable because the fatality was caused partly as a result of a light bulb having been removed by a third party, over which the occupiers had no control. So the claim failed at the legal causation stage. Lord Denning’s description of the occupier being any person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises remains the key test for determining the occupier. Note the four specific examples of the occupier that Lord Denning provides. As to his fourth example, Lord Denning states that generally the occupier will remain responsible if he hires independent contractors. It is, however, possible for independent contractors to be occupiers or to be dual occupiers (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1028). Where no-one has sufficient control over the premises, the claim in occupiers’ liability will necessarily fail, as it did in the next case.
Answer
?

Tags
#cases #occupiers-liability #tort
Question
Facts: The defendants were the owners of a pub. They granted Mr and Mrs Richardson, the manager and his wife, a licence to use the top floor of the premises for their private accommodation and to take in paying guests. The plaintiff and her husband were paying guests. The husband was fatally injured while using the staircase which had a faulty hand rail. He could not see this as the area had no lighting (the light bulb was missing). The question arose as to who was in occupation of the stairs on which the plaintiff was injured, for the purpose of a claim in occupiers’ liability.
The court held that both the defendant owners and Mr and Mrs Richardson were occupiers and that both therefore owed a duty of care. In the event, neither were liable because the fatality was caused partly as a result of a light bulb having been removed by a third party, over which the occupiers had no control. So the claim failed at the legal causation stage. Lord Denning’s description of the occupier being any person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises remains the key test for determining the occupier. Note the four specific examples of the occupier that Lord Denning provides. As to his fourth example, Lord Denning states that generally the occupier will remain responsible if he hires independent contractors. It is, however, possible for independent contractors to be occupiers or to be dual occupiers (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1028). Where no-one has sufficient control over the premises, the claim in occupiers’ liability will necessarily fail, as it did in the next case.
Answer
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [1966] AC 552
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [1966] AC 552 Facts: The defendants were the owners of a pub. They granted Mr and Mrs Richardson, the manager and his wife, a licence to use the top floor of the premises for their private accommodati

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.