law of Tort tutorial -occupier liability PDF

Preview

Summary

ccupierIssue: Whether Brim council is an occupier for the public park in Damansara?Law: According to Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd , an occupier is someone who has the control over such premises and have the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of any person. This can be seen when the court hel...

Description

ccupier Issue: Whether Brim council is an occupier for the public park in Damansara? Law: According to Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd , an occupier is someone who has the control over such premises and have the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of any person. This can be seen when the court held that the defendant and the manager were occupiers because both of them had sufficient control over the private premises on the first floor together. The court further held that the control no need to be absolute or exclusive. Application: According to the fact Brim Council has the control over the public park this can be shown when Brim council have the power to impose an entrance fee charge of RM0.50 for anyone wishing to visit the public park in Damansara. Conclusion: Brim council is an occupier for the public park. Premises Issue: Whether the public park in Damansara is consider as a premises ? Law: According to Lau Tin Sye v Yusuf bin Muhammad , premises include moveable and immoveable property ,hence all form of building, land spaces ,vehicles such as tractors and structures such as ladders is considered as premises. This can also be illustrated in the Wheeler v Copas where the court held that ladder is a premise. Application: In applying the law, public parks fall under a type of land space , it is a park with land, fence and pond . Conclusion: The public park in Damansara is consider as a premises Duty of occupier Law: Datuk Bandar Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur v Ong Kok Peng It is the ought for the occupier to keep the premises is safe. The occupier of premises owed a common duty of care to ensure all his visitor are reasonably safe. The duty under tort of occupier ‘liability is to ensure the visitor are reasonably safe and not to keep a safe premise. Application: Brim council is a occupier of the park hence Brim council owed a duty of care against a lawful invitee who enter their park. Entrant? Issue: Whether Bob will be protected as a lawful visitor or held as a trespasser? Law: The standard of care required of the occupier differ according to the different type of entrants.

The standard of care required of the occupier is highest in contractual entrants followed by invitees to licensees and lastly trespasser. According to Robert Addie & Sons LTD V Dumbreck the court stated that in an occupier does mot owe a duty to a trespasser as he had entered without permission and is therefore assumed to have accepted all risk and any danger thee might be on the property. However, according to BRB v Herrington, it stated that although the general rule is that an occupier is under no duty to prevent danger to trespassers but there are one exception is where the occupier places his land something which is dangerous and is an allurement factors to children. The court in this case further state that by putting the allurement the occupier is in a sense inviting the children to meddle with the dangerous things hence the occupier have the duty to take effective steps to keep the child trespasser out or else to make their premises safe for them if they come. **Glassgow Corporation Taylor

Application: From the fact Bob did not enter the park by paying the entrants fees hence he will not be a contractual entrants hence Bob is consider as a child trespasser. Bob was seriously ill after he taken the poisonous berries that growing wildly overhanging the fence surrounding the pond in the center of the park as the berries was bright and subsequently attracted him to eat. Therefore, the poisonous berries are an allurement factor. The Brim council who put this poisonous berry as an allurement factors have the duty to take effective steps to avoid the children from taking the poisonous berries because Brim council ought to have known that the beautiful bright berries might attract the children and even attract the adult. From the fact, there is nothing which mention that the Brim council had taken step by putting any warning regarding to the poisonous berries or put any sign the tell the public that the berries are poisonous. Conclusion: The Brim council has a duty against Bob who had attracted by the allurement factors....