In Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 it was held that an occupier is entitled to assume that a child will be subject to parental care. The plaintiff, who was a boy of five, went 'blackberrying' with his sister. They walked across a large area of land that was part of a housing estate being developed by the defendants. The plaintiff fell down a large trench that had been dug by an employee of the defendants. The trench would have been obvious to an adult. It was held that [...](because their parents would stop them).
Answer
prudent parents would not have allowed a young child to walk across the area in question and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to assume that children would not come onto the premises
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
In Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 it was held that an occupier is entitled to assume that a child will be subject to parental care. The plaintiff, who was a boy of five, went 'blackberrying' with his sister. They walked across a large area of land that was part of a housing estate being developed by the defendants. The plaintiff fell down a large trench that had been dug by an employee of the defendants. The trench would have been obvious to an adult. It was held that [...](because their parents would stop them).
Answer
?
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
In Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 it was held that an occupier is entitled to assume that a child will be subject to parental care. The plaintiff, who was a boy of five, went 'blackberrying' with his sister. They walked across a large area of land that was part of a housing estate being developed by the defendants. The plaintiff fell down a large trench that had been dug by an employee of the defendants. The trench would have been obvious to an adult. It was held that [...](because their parents would stop them).
Answer
prudent parents would not have allowed a young child to walk across the area in question and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to assume that children would not come onto the premises
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it e area of land that was part of a housing estate being developed by the defendants. The plaintiff fell down a large trench that had been dug by an employee of the defendants. The trench would have been obvious to an adult. It was held that <span>prudent parents would not have allowed a young child to walk across the area in question and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to assume that children would not come onto the premises (because their parents would stop them).<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.