OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY

1. In what special circumstances does the law relating to occupier's liability apply?
An occupier’s liability arises in situation where the premises are not as safe as it should
reasonably be and thisdefective state, which includes activities carries out on the premises,
causes injury or damage to the plaintiff.

2. What is the distinction between an invitee and a licensee?

State the duty owed by the occupier to each of these categories of entrants.
INVITEE - are those person enter premise with permission or authority of occupier
1. Legal authorised entrants- enter premises on authority of law for example, policeman,
firemen, metre-readers and etc.
- shamsuddin v yap choh toh & anor where in thiscase the policeman injured in quarry for duty
and it was held he was invitee thus dutyof careowned. the contractor held liable.
2. Business contractor where those who enter premises (public/private) for materialistic reason
and bring economic advantage to occupier. For example customer at supermarket, guest at hotel,
and customer at bank.
- case : indermaur v dames where the priciple laid unusual danger known by the defendant and
even if plaintiff must take reasonable steps to avoid it, occupiers must an occupier must reasonably
avoid any damage that could arise from an extraordinary danger that is known to him, or ought to have
been known to him
t reasonbly avoid the damage and steps include giving notice, lighting, guarding and etc.
(a) Duty of invitee to other invitee where even if a person not occupier of premise owes
document
- case of indermaur v dames - occupiers will be liable to an invitee who suffers injury or damage
to property if factors are established -
1. Occupiers know or ought to have known the danger(foreseeable)
2. Danger is unusual (unusual danger)
3. Danger not known by plaintiff
4. Occupier fail to reasonably avoid the damage from occurring
(b) Meaning of occupier’s knowledge where the occupier liable for danger that is actually known
to or ought to be known by him as a reasonable man
- cae of Hawkins v Coulsdon & Purley where if occupier knows of physical condition of
premises and a reasonable man would know its dangerous, then the occupier deem to know the
danger and owes a duty to warn an invitee, unless danger obviou. Access : state of knowledge at
the time
(c ) unusual damage where it dependson degree of danger
- case of london graving dock co v horton where unusual or extraordinary dangeris not common
for purpose of particular invitee
-unusualdanger depends on - 1. type of plaintiff, 2. circumstances surrounding premises and 3.
plaintiff knowledge
(c) Knowledge of plaintiff where if the plaintiff knows about the danger, then its not unusual
danger
LICENSEES where it enters with occupiers gratuitous permission
Three types :
1. Entrant as of right where to enter to premise that open to public. The general principle is that
actual knowledge of occupier as to danger is not neccesary. The occupier must take reasonable
step toavoid danger especially when it is obvious
2. Social visitors where enter private premise with permission of defendant. Occupier or by
invitation
-case : yeap cheng mock v kajima - taisei joint venture where the geologist injured during visit to
a mine for own purposes. It was held plaintiff held to be licensee because enter with consent of
occupier based on occupier’s gratuitous permission and not business reason. Defendant liable
because danger is concealed danger and ought to be known by defendant.
3. Entrant by permission where the court implies a license
(a) Occupiers duty - case robert addie & sons ltd v dumbreck where the duty arises with
occupier’s knowledge and exist conceal danger
(b) Meaning of occupier’s knowledge - case of hawkins v coulsdon on objective test.
(c) Meaning of conceal or hidden danger - case of latham v R Johnson & nephew ltd where the
hidden or concealed and etement of surprise, the premise look safe but in fact a trap. Sufficient if
danger is something which licensee not aware of and cant expected to be aware of
(d) Knowledge of plaintiff - case of lim seow wah v housing and development board where the
defendant should have foreseen the danger
4. Children licenseeswherethe duty of occupier is higher
- case of phipps v rochester corporation two children entered compound and pluck fruits. If
parents or guardian have exercised reasonable care for safety it falls on shoulders of occupiers to
show he taken reasonable precautions.

3. Who is a trespasser and how does he differ from the "lawful visitor" category? What is
the duty owed to him if any?
A trespasser is a person who enters premises without any express or implied permission
of the occupier. His existence on the premises may not be known to the occupier, such as
a wandering child, a thief, a person who has lost his way, and so forth A person who is legally
authorised to be on the premises may become a trespasser if he goes onto a restricted area,or
when he stays on the premises beyond the time allowed to him or where there has been an
improper use of the premises.
Initially the duty owed to trespassers was that as laid down in Robert Addie & Sons Ltd v
Dumbreck
where the court stated that in general an occupier does no owe a duty to trespasser as he had
entered without permission and is therefore assumed to have accepted all risks and any danger
there might be on the property. This decision was overruled in British Railways Board v
Herrington. Even though an occupier did not owe a duty towards a trespasser as that owed
towards invitees, nevertheless the occupier must take reasonable steps of common humanity and
common sense to avoid danger; or to give
warnings to people who might be on his premises. Therefore, if the presence of the trespasser is
known or reasonably foreseeable, the occupier owes a duty towards the trespasser to warn him of
the potential danger even though the duty is lower than the duty owed towards invited visitors.

Trespassers - are those who enter premises without express or implied permission of occupiers
Case - chuan seng& co pineapples factory v idris & anor - two plaintiff (deceased) took lorry
without consent. Lorry overturnedand plaintiffs killed. It was held no duty of care owed. No
need to put notice or warning for vehicles.
Case - sathu v hawthoriden rubber estate where the plainitff cattle strayed on defendant rubber
estate. Estate sprayed with weedkiller.cattle died. It was held the defendant can’t foresee
trespass by plainitiff cattle and therefore no duty owed.
Chidd trespassers
Case- BRB v herrington - occupier did notowe duty to prevent danger to trespasser and the
exception is thing on land is attraction to children
Case- lembaga letrik negara v ramakrishnan - ten years old child electrocuted after climbed a
electric pole. No sign or barbed wire or spikes. It was held the child trespasser and occupier
owed duty of care for not reasonably put up any anti-climbing device.

4. Borhan owns a house which is surrounded by a fence made of wood. One portion of the
fence has a large gap in it because part of the wood had been destroyed by dry rot.
Borhan is aware of this condition in his fence and has been aware of this condition for
quite some time. However due to neglect and the fact that he is a busy businessman he
fails to repair the fence. Halim a child of 5 years old, goes to play at the compound of
 Borhan with Borhan's child Bob. Halim frequently crossed the fence at the large gap for
this purpose. One day Halim was joined by a new-found friend from the neighbourhood,
6 years old Siu Kheng and together they crossed over the fence. They fall into a pond
where Borhan rears his fishes and drown.

Discuss.
Those children are trespasser. In BRB v Herrington it was stated that although the
general rule is that an occupier is under no duty to prevent danger to trespassers, one
exception is where the occupier places upon his land something which is dangerous and is an
allurement to children. In this case, Brohan’s son may be an allurement
Halim – his frequent entrance without any restriction – implied permission  licensee
Lack of common interest – there is interest on Halim’s part but there is no interest on the
other party
Standard of care – concealed danger, traps + case – defined a concealed danger (awareness
of the danger, does not mean that if you can see it then it is not concealed)

Is what injured him a concealed danger? Yes, why / no, why (WHY is important) – but has to
be consistent with the principle
Knowledge – occupier’s and plaintiff

5. Roslan invites Mohsen and Fuad to dinner at his home to celebrate his 21st birthday.
Mohsen and Fuad are entering the compound of Roslan's house, when Mohsen's foot gets
lodged in a hole unnoticed by both of them. As a result of this Mohsen falls down and
breaks his leg. Roslan on hearing the screams of help from Fuad runs out of the house
and both Roslan and Fuad help to carry Mohsen into the House. On climbing the stairs to
the house Fuad slips as a result of the newly applied polish on the floor and breaks his
back.

Advise Mohsen and Fuad.

-define occupier as where the person is an occupier –sufficient control over

the premise – can arise from ownership, occupations
Wheat v Lacon where in this case the brewery who allowed managers of pub to live there remained in
occupation as retained sufficient degree of control. If someone has to live somewhere as a part of their
occupation they will not be an occupier. In denning’s judgement of four categories of occupiers where the
first one is where the landlord doesn’t live on the property and the tenant is occupier, the second is where
the landlord retains some part of the premises ex like common areas he will be the occupier of those parts
and the third is where the landlord issues a license, they remain the occupier and the last one is the where
the landlord employs an independent contractor, they usually remain the occupier.
Have to prove Roslan has control – mere ownership does not mean that he has control
Define a premise – case – identify the premise in the question – as long as it is something
that someone can get onto – the structure, land
If can establish occupier and premise, there is a duty (not liability)
Whether that duty has been fulfilled or breached – determine the standard of duty – if the
standard is fulfilled – there is no liability (even if the damage is extensive)
Standard of care depends on the type of entrants
-invitee – common interest + case – what is the common interest for mohsen and fuad – to attend the
birthday function
-even though there is a contract of being offer and accpetance of invitation to treat but on their duty to be
reasonably careful and take steps or precautions
(*contractual entrant – people who pay to enter a premise for a purpose –based on an
agreement to let you in) therefore in this case Roslan clearly shows that he invited both of them for the
birthday function
what is the unusual danger – here what was the danger that injured him – is there an
unusual danger – relative to the entrance and premise
for mohsen and fuad a house with hole that was unnoticed by both of them and applied the polish on the
floor be unusual – it is usual and Roslan should at least have notified them on that hole and the newly
polish floor
occupier – known or ought to have known the danger whereby the house owner should have at least place
sign board on alarming them on newly polished floor and also the hole that was left unnoticed