Hawkins v Coulsdon PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of Hawkins v Coulsdon...

Description

Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council (1652) – Court of Appeal On August 13, 1946, a house was requisitioned by the defendants, the Coulsdon and Purley Urabn District Council, under authority from the Ministry of Health, for housing of persons inadequately housed. All the steps of the house was considerably worn down, and at the time of the requisition the bottom step was broken. There was a street lamp on the pavement outside, but there was a large fir tree came between the light from the lamp. Between the year 1946 and October 5, 1651 the defendants’ officers inspected the house from time to time, and during the period both inside and outside repairs were done by them. The defendants’ rent collectors made weekly visits and it was part of their duties to report any matters requiring attention. In 1950, the defendants’ repair supervisor inspected the house and made recommendation regarding repairs to the downstairs flat but made no recommendations with regard to the front steps and considered that there was no outside work to be done. On October 5, 1951, a friend, the plaintiff, Ms. Hawkins came to visit the owner of the house, arriving about half an hour before dark. The plaintiff did not look at the steps to such extend to see that they were broken. When she left around 8 p.m. the porch was unlighted. She was feeling her way down the steps in the darkness, the plaintiff trod on the broken steps and resulted her to fell and break her leg. After the incident, the plaintiff claimed damages against her defendants, alleging that by virtue of a requisition, in occupation and control of the porch way, steps and approaches to the house that she was lawfully visiting the person occupying the upper floor under an agreement with the defendants, and that the defendants owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent her, on the occasion of that visit, from suffering any damage from any hidden danger or trap in the porch way, steps or approaches of which they were aware. The defendants denied that they owned any duty to the plaintiff or that the steps constituted a hidden danger or trap, or that had been any breach of duty or negligence on their part, they alleged that the plaintiff’s fall was due to her own negligence.

Decided at the court of first instances: a. The defendants were in possession and control of the steps. b. Plaintiff was using the steps as a license of the defendants. c. The bottom step had been badly broken for at least a year and was dangerous, being likely to cause an accident, especially to a person descending the steps at night. d. Even if the lamp was lit, there was still not enough light to enable a normally careful person to see that the bottom step was broken. e. The broken step was a concealed danger to the plaintiff. f. The plaintiff was not careless of her own safety either in failing to notice the broken step. g. The accident was caused by the concealed danger constituted by the broken step and the deficiency of light. h. The physical facts, were known to the defendants through their officers i. A reasonable man, having the defendants’ knowledge of the physical facts, would have appreciated the risk involved. j. It was not proved that the defendants appreciated the risk involved. The judge has taken the principle to be applied is stated by Lord Sumner in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Procter. Applying that principle, the judge has ruled out that the steps was not obvious to the plaintiff, and was not to be expected there under the circumstances and was a danger the existence of which a reasonable man, using reasonable judgement conduct under the circumstances, would not have expected or suspected. To be entitled to recover, the licensee must show that the danger was known to the licensor. In this case, the judge used the objective test, where if subjective test was used the plaintiff will not be able to recover from the damages from the defendants. The judge concluded from examination of the previous cases, is that there is sufficient House of Lords authority in favor of the objective test to justify and require its application here. Licensor is not liable if through lack of adequate inspection he has failed to ascertain the existence. But if the licensor does know of the physical facts which constitute the danger, and a reasonable man, having that knowledge, would appreciate the risk involved, the licensor is not excused by his own failure to appreciate the risk involved.

In other words, occupier is liable as he knew one of the steps was broken, even though he did not realize the extent of danger. If the occupiers have knowledge the premises’ physical condition, and a reasonable man would know that it’s dangerous. i.

Occupier deemed to know the danger.

ii.

Consequently, a duty to warn invitee is owed by him, unless danger is obvious.

Parties involved in this case: 

Ms. Hawkins



Coulsdon and Purley UDC

Right and Duty of related parties 

It is the duty of Coulson and Purley UDC to warn Ms. Hawkins or any other invitee of any hidden danger



It is the right of Ms. Hawkins to sue Coulson and Purley UDC to claim for the injuries suffered.

Issue and Problem that has been raised 

Refer paragraph 3 and 4

Element of contract involved in this case 

None

Element of tort involved in this case 

Duty of care



Liability of occupiers

The solution of this case 

Refer to the objective test

REFERENCE LAW OF TORTS in MALAYSIA, THIRD EDITION, SWEET & MAXWELL ASIA MALAYSIAN COURTS, STATUTES, CASES & CONTRACT, TORT AND CRIMINAL LAW, NURAISYHAH CHUA ABDULLAH, INTERNATIONAL LAW BOOK SERVICES...