Occupiers Liability And Liability To Neighbours Flashcards
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden
Two and a half year old drowned in a pond at a camper an site. Parents tried to take legal action against the site owner for not having adequate safety warnings, however it was found that the pond was an obvious threat and therefor wasn’t necessary to have such warnings
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation
The defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public. On the park various botanic plants and shrubs grew. A boy of seven years ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The berries were poisonous and the boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented.
Held - Glasgow Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered.
Darby v National Trust
The claimant’s husband, Mr Darby, drowned in a pond owned by the National Trust (NT). The pond was one of five ponds in Hardwick Hall near Chesterfield. Two of the ponds were used for fishing and NT had taken steps to prevent the use of those ponds for swimming or paddling. However, with regards to the pond in which the fatality occurred, NT had done nothing to prevent visitors using the pond and it was common for visitors to use the pond for paddling and swimming during the warm summer months. On the day in question Mr Darby had been paddling with his children around the edge of the pond. He then swam to the middle to play a game he had often played whereby he would go under water and then bob up to the surface. However, he got into difficulty and drowned. The claimant argued that because of NT’s inactivity in preventing swimmers using the pond, both she and her husband had assumed the pond was safe for swimming.
Held - NT was not liable. The risk to swimmers in the pond were perfectly obvious. There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
Haseldine v C.A. Daw & Son Ltd
The case involved a hydraulic lift which was used to access the upper floor flats of an apartment block which were rented out to tenants. The landlord remained in occupation of the lift and had insurance against third party risks in the course of using the lift. The insurance company made occasional inspections of the lift in this respect. There was also an agreement made between the landlord and an engineering company to maintain the lift each month and report issues. The engineers told the landlord the rams were badly worn but not that it was dangerous to use. On one visit, one of the engineers failed to repack the machinery properly, leaving it weakened for the next use. The next day, the plaintiff used the lift and was injured when the lift broke. The plaintiff brought an action against the landlord and engineers.
Held - The Court of Appeal held that the only obligation on the landlord was to ensure that the lift was reasonably safe and that he had employed competent engineers to inspect the machinery. It was held on this basis that the landlord was not liable for the incident. The owner was not aware of the danger caused by the fact that the mechanic had not repacked the machine satisfactorily.
British Railways Board v Herrington
A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a fence however, part of the fence had been pushed down and the gap created had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence which had been present for several months, but had failed to do anything about it. Under existing authority of Addie v Dumbreck no duty of care was owed to trespassers
Held - However, the House of Lords departed from their previous decision using the 1966 Practice Statement and held that the defendant railway company did owe a duty of common humanity to trespassers.
Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation
The defendant owned a disused cinema which they purchased with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket. The cinema was last used on 29th May 1976. Littlewoods acquired the building on 31st May 1976. Contractors were present at the cinema until 21st June and thereafter the cinema was empty until the incident on 5th July 1976. The contractors had left the building secure, however, vandals had broke into the building. Littlewoods had not been informed of this and so the building remained unsecured. There was evidence to suggest that further entry by vandals had occurred over the couple of weeks. The fittings inside the building were damaged and debris was thrown. On one occasion a sink had been removed and thrown onto the roof of a billiard hall. There were also two small incidents involving fire. None of this was reported to the police or Littlewoods. On July 5th the vandals broke into the cinema and set fire to it. The fire spread and caused damage to neighbouring properties. The owners of the properties brought an action in negligence claiming that Littlewoods owed them a duty of care to prevent the actions of the vandals.
Held - Littlewoods were not liable. Whilst they did owe a duty of care they were not in breach of duty. They were not required to provide 24 hour surveillance and were unaware of the previous incidents. The law is unwilling to impose liability for the deliberate act of a third party.
