A building contractor may assume a duty of care to a visitor, though the contractor was not viewed as the occupier, the occupier being separately liable to the injured plaintiff. However, ‘if the Plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was warned or from his own knowledge or observation, the question is whether the danger was such that in the circumstances no sensible man would have incurred it or, in other words, whether the Plaintiff’s exposing himself to the danger was a want of common or ordinary prudence on his part. If it was not, then the fact that he voluntarily or knowingly incurred the danger does not entitle the defendant to escape from liability.’
Lord Reid said: ‘There may be many cases in which warning is an adequate discharge of the duty . . but there are other cases when that is not so’ and illustrated this view by reference to case law. He continued: ‘The conclusion to be drawn from these cases appears to me to be that there is no magic in giving a warning. If the plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was warned or from his own knowledge and observation, the question is whether the danger was such that in the circumstances no sensible man would have incurred it or, in other words, whether the plaintiff’s exposing himself to the danger was a want of common or ordinary prudence on his part. If it was not, the fact that he voluntarily or knowingly incurred the danger does not entitle the defendant to escape from liability.’ The laintiff need not be a ‘paragon of circumspection’.
Judges:
Lord Somervell of Harrow, Lord Cohen, Lord Reid
Citations:
[1958] AC 240, [1957] 3 WLR 496, [1957] 3 All ER 1, [1957] UKHL 1, [1957] 1 QB 46
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Land
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180983