The court discussed the distinction between the liability of an occupier for the dangerous condition of his premises and the liability of an occupier in relation to dangerous activities carried out on his premises. Denning LJ said: ‘In this case . . it does not matter whether the plaintiff was an invitee or a licensee. That distinction is only material in regard to the static condition of the premises. It is concerned with dangers which have been present for some time in the physical structure of the premises. It has no relevance in regard to current operations, that is, to things being done on the premises, to dangers which are brought about by the contemporaneous activities of the occupier or his servants or of anyone else.’
Judges:
Denning LJ
Citations:
[1953] 2 All ER 1572 CA, [1954] 1 WLR 58
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Negligence
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.181219
