Liability of owner for dangerous premises: The occupier owes a common duty towards all his visitors to take such care as in all ci…
Liability of owner for dangerous premises:
The occupier owes a common duty towards all his visitors to
take such care as in all circumstances the visitor will be reasonably safe. The
visitor may be a lawful visitor or a trespasser.
take such care as in all circumstances the visitor will be reasonably safe. The
visitor may be a lawful visitor or a trespasser.
I.
Obligation of Occupiers.
Obligation of Occupiers.
The nature of obligation of an occupier of land may be
classified as:
classified as:
- Obligation towards lawful visitor
- Obligation towards trespassers
- Obligation towards children.
1.
Obligation
towards lawful visitors
Obligation
towards lawful visitors
Where a person enters the land of
another in pursuance of a contract or is an invitee, the latter must take
reasonable care to prevent injury to the invitee from danger of which he knew
or ought to have known.
another in pursuance of a contract or is an invitee, the latter must take
reasonable care to prevent injury to the invitee from danger of which he knew
or ought to have known.
Case
Law : Indermaur Vs. Dames
Law : Indermaur Vs. Dames
In that case, the plaintiff, who was a
gas fitter, entered the defendant’s premises for testing certain gas fittings
there. While doing so, he fell from an unfenced opening on the upper floor and
was injured. The plaintiff, being an invitee on those premises, the defendant
was held liable for the injury caused to him.
gas fitter, entered the defendant’s premises for testing certain gas fittings
there. While doing so, he fell from an unfenced opening on the upper floor and
was injured. The plaintiff, being an invitee on those premises, the defendant
was held liable for the injury caused to him.
Case Law: Klous Mittlebachert Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.
The plaintiff, a German took a dive in
a swimming pool in a five star hotel at New Delhi, there was insufficient water
in the swimming pool and the head of the boy was hit against the bottom. Court
held that the management authorities are liable for not taking reasonable care
of the lawful visitors.
a swimming pool in a five star hotel at New Delhi, there was insufficient water
in the swimming pool and the head of the boy was hit against the bottom. Court
held that the management authorities are liable for not taking reasonable care
of the lawful visitors.
2.
Obligation
towards Trespassers
Obligation
towards Trespassers
A trespasser is person who enters into
the premises of another without seeking permission, and whose presence/visit is
either known or unknown to the owner, moreover even if is known, the occupier
has objections towards trespassers.
the premises of another without seeking permission, and whose presence/visit is
either known or unknown to the owner, moreover even if is known, the occupier
has objections towards trespassers.
The general rule is that an occupier is
not liable in tort to a trespasser. There are two exceptions to this
rule:
not liable in tort to a trespasser. There are two exceptions to this
rule:
a)
The occupier must not deliberately
cause harm to the trespasser.
The occupier must not deliberately
cause harm to the trespasser.
b)
He must not act with reckless disregard
to trespasser’s safety if he has knowledge of his presence in his premises or
land.
He must not act with reckless disregard
to trespasser’s safety if he has knowledge of his presence in his premises or
land.
Note:
If the occupier acquiesces to the frequent acts of trespass, he is deemed
to have tacitly licensed the entry of others on the land. Such visitors
become entitled to the rights of licensee on the land.
If the occupier acquiesces to the frequent acts of trespass, he is deemed
to have tacitly licensed the entry of others on the land. Such visitors
become entitled to the rights of licensee on the land.
Case
Law : Lowery Vs. Walker
Law : Lowery Vs. Walker
The defendant was an occupier of a
field, adjacent to a railway station. Members of the public used his field as a
short cut to reach the railway station. Though the defendant objected to it, he
took no effective steps to stop the practice. Meanwhile the defendant bought a
savage horse and kept it on his land without any notice. One day the horse
attacked a trespasser (plaintiff) who was seriously injured. It was held that
the plaintiff because of the tacit permission from the defendant had now been
vested with rights of a licensee. Therefore, the defendant was liable for the
injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
field, adjacent to a railway station. Members of the public used his field as a
short cut to reach the railway station. Though the defendant objected to it, he
took no effective steps to stop the practice. Meanwhile the defendant bought a
savage horse and kept it on his land without any notice. One day the horse
attacked a trespasser (plaintiff) who was seriously injured. It was held that
the plaintiff because of the tacit permission from the defendant had now been
vested with rights of a licensee. Therefore, the defendant was liable for the
injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
NOTE: The occupier for the protection of premises cannot
install of spring guns and setting a live naked electric wire, and any such
dangerous object.
install of spring guns and setting a live naked electric wire, and any such
dangerous object.
4. Obligation towards Children
Occupier must take reasonable care to
ensure the safety of its visitors and if the occupier knows that, the visitors
are children he needs to be more careful as children are generally less careful
than the adults are. They are more susceptible to dangers. Hence, the occupier
must take reasonable care to guard them against such dangers from which the
adults may not need any protection.
ensure the safety of its visitors and if the occupier knows that, the visitors
are children he needs to be more careful as children are generally less careful
than the adults are. They are more susceptible to dangers. Hence, the occupier
must take reasonable care to guard them against such dangers from which the
adults may not need any protection.
Case
Law : Glasgow Corporation Vs. Taylor
Law : Glasgow Corporation Vs. Taylor
A corporation maintained a public park.
A child, who had come to the park, plucked a fruit looking like a berry, from
the shrubs. It was poisonous and the child died after consuming it. It was held
that the corporation was liable for their negligence in not fencing the shrubs.
A child, who had come to the park, plucked a fruit looking like a berry, from
the shrubs. It was poisonous and the child died after consuming it. It was held
that the corporation was liable for their negligence in not fencing the shrubs.
Structures on Highways or adjoining Highways
The structures adjoining the highway
must be maintained in such a way as not to be dangerous to the users of
highway. If the building is in a bad condition and can cause damage if any such
damage is caused then the occupier will be liable.
must be maintained in such a way as not to be dangerous to the users of
highway. If the building is in a bad condition and can cause damage if any such
damage is caused then the occupier will be liable.
Example Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Subhagwanti.
The Supreme Court observed that “because
of the potential danger of the tower maintained by it having been subjected to
a careful and systematic inspection which it was legal duty of the appellant to
carry out”
of the potential danger of the tower maintained by it having been subjected to
a careful and systematic inspection which it was legal duty of the appellant to
carry out”
II. LIABILITY OF OWNERS FOR DANGEROUS ANIMALS
A person who keeps an animal of dangerous species or
non dangerous species who is vicious in nature is solely and strictly liable
for any damage caused due to his negligence. There are certain rules to fix the
liability under this head.
non dangerous species who is vicious in nature is solely and strictly liable
for any damage caused due to his negligence. There are certain rules to fix the
liability under this head.
1)
Scienter
Rule
Scienter
Rule
This rule makes the owner of dangerous
animals strictly liable even without proof of negligence for the damage caused
by them if they escape. Examples of such animals are lions, monkeys, elephants,
wolves, apes, bears etc.
animals strictly liable even without proof of negligence for the damage caused
by them if they escape. Examples of such animals are lions, monkeys, elephants,
wolves, apes, bears etc.
In case of animals of non dangerous
nature, like cows, dogs, rabbits, cats, horses, camels etc, the owner is liable
for the damage caused by them only if it can be proved that the animals had the
vicious tendencies and the owner knew about it.
nature, like cows, dogs, rabbits, cats, horses, camels etc, the owner is liable
for the damage caused by them only if it can be proved that the animals had the
vicious tendencies and the owner knew about it.
Case law: Read Vs. Edward
The owner of the dog was held liable
for his dog’s act of trespassing and killing pheasants of his neighbor.
for his dog’s act of trespassing and killing pheasants of his neighbor.
2)
Trespass of
Cattle
Trespass of
Cattle
The term
cattle include cows, bulls, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, poultry etc. It
does not include dogs, cats or wild animals. If any damage is caused by
trespass of cattle upon the land of another, the owner is strictly and
absolutely liable.
cattle include cows, bulls, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, poultry etc. It
does not include dogs, cats or wild animals. If any damage is caused by
trespass of cattle upon the land of another, the owner is strictly and
absolutely liable.
For example: A owns few sheep and took them for grazing in an open area,
on his way there was a beautiful lawn maintained by B, A was busy in talking
and the sheep entered into the B’s lawn and destroyed the plants, A is liable
for not taking reasonable care which was required in present circumstances.
on his way there was a beautiful lawn maintained by B, A was busy in talking
and the sheep entered into the B’s lawn and destroyed the plants, A is liable
for not taking reasonable care which was required in present circumstances.
Practice exercise:
1. The occupier does
not owe a common duty towards all his visitors to take such care as in all
circumstances the visitor will be reasonably safe.
not owe a common duty towards all his visitors to take such care as in all
circumstances the visitor will be reasonably safe.
A. True
B. False
Ans: B
2. What is the nature of obligation of an occupier of land?
A. Obligation towards lawful visitor
B. Obligation towards trespassers
C. Obligation towards children.
D. All of the above
Ans: D
3. Where a person
enters the land of another in pursuance of a contract or is an invitee, the
latter must take reasonable care to prevent injury to the invitee from danger
of which he knew or ought to have known.
enters the land of another in pursuance of a contract or is an invitee, the
latter must take reasonable care to prevent injury to the invitee from danger
of which he knew or ought to have known.
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
4. The plaintiff, who was a gas fitter, entered the
defendant’s premises for testing certain gas fittings there. While doing so, he
fell from an unfenced opening on the upper floor and was injured. Will the
defendant be liable?
defendant’s premises for testing certain gas fittings there. While doing so, he
fell from an unfenced opening on the upper floor and was injured. Will the
defendant be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
5. The plaintiff, a German took a dive in a swimming pool in
a five star hotel at New Delhi, there was insufficient water in the swimming
pool and the head of the boy was hit against the bottom. Will the hotel be held
liable?
a five star hotel at New Delhi, there was insufficient water in the swimming
pool and the head of the boy was hit against the bottom. Will the hotel be held
liable?
A. Yes
B. No
C. All of the above
D. None of the above
Ans: A
6. Would the hotel be liable if there were warning signs
place and it was clearly mentioned that diving is prohibited?
place and it was clearly mentioned that diving is prohibited?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: B
7. The general rule is that an occupier is not liable in
tort to a trespasser. What are the exceptions to this rule?
tort to a trespasser. What are the exceptions to this rule?
A. The occupier must not deliberately cause harm to the
trespasser.
trespasser.
B. He must not act with reckless disregard to trespasser’s
safety if he has knowledge of his presence in his premises or land
safety if he has knowledge of his presence in his premises or land
C. All of the above
D. None of the above
Ans: C
8. Occupier must take reasonable care to ensure the safety
of its visitors and if the occupier knows that, the visitors are children he
needs to be more careful as children are generally less careful than the adults
are.
of its visitors and if the occupier knows that, the visitors are children he
needs to be more careful as children are generally less careful than the adults
are.
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
9. A corporation maintained a public park. A child, who had
come to the park, plucked a fruit looking like a berry, from the shrubs. Will
the Corporation be liable?
come to the park, plucked a fruit looking like a berry, from the shrubs. Will
the Corporation be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
10. The structures
adjoining the highway must be maintained in such a way as not to be dangerous
to the users of highway.
adjoining the highway must be maintained in such a way as not to be dangerous
to the users of highway.
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
11. A person who keeps an animal of dangerous species or non
dangerous species who is vicious in nature is solely and strictly liable for
any damage caused due to his negligence
dangerous species who is vicious in nature is solely and strictly liable for
any damage caused due to his negligence
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
12. A owns few sheep and took them for grazing in an open
area, on his way there was a beautiful lawn maintained by B, A was busy in
talking and the sheep entered into the B’s lawn and destroyed the plants. Will
A be held liable?
area, on his way there was a beautiful lawn maintained by B, A was busy in
talking and the sheep entered into the B’s lawn and destroyed the plants. Will
A be held liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: A
