As far as supervising and checking the work is concerned, the occupier can only do what is reasonable. What can be expected of them will, therefore, depend upon the nature of the work in question. In [ case ]the plaintiff visited a block of flats owned by the defendant in order to see one of the tenants. He was injured when the lift plummeted to the basement. The dropping of the lift was caused by the negligence of the lift engineers. It was held that the defendant had no responsibility as the work was technical and, therefore, reasonably entrusted to contractors; they were a competent firm and the defendant, having no technical knowledge, could not be expected to carry out any checks on the machinery.
Answer
Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
As far as supervising and checking the work is concerned, the occupier can only do what is reasonable. What can be expected of them will, therefore, depend upon the nature of the work in question. In [ case ]the plaintiff visited a block of flats owned by the defendant in order to see one of the tenants. He was injured when the lift plummeted to the basement. The dropping of the lift was caused by the negligence of the lift engineers. It was held that the defendant had no responsibility as the work was technical and, therefore, reasonably entrusted to contractors; they were a competent firm and the defendant, having no technical knowledge, could not be expected to carry out any checks on the machinery.
Answer
?
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
As far as supervising and checking the work is concerned, the occupier can only do what is reasonable. What can be expected of them will, therefore, depend upon the nature of the work in question. In [ case ]the plaintiff visited a block of flats owned by the defendant in order to see one of the tenants. He was injured when the lift plummeted to the basement. The dropping of the lift was caused by the negligence of the lift engineers. It was held that the defendant had no responsibility as the work was technical and, therefore, reasonably entrusted to contractors; they were a competent firm and the defendant, having no technical knowledge, could not be expected to carry out any checks on the machinery.
Answer
Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it As far as supervising and checking the work is concerned, the occupier can only do what is reasonable. What can be expected of them will, therefore, depend upon the nature of the work in question. In Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343 the plaintiff visited a block of flats owned by the defendant in order to see one of the tenants. He was injured when the lift plummeted to the basement. The dropping of the lift was c
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.