Law of Torts, MV Act and

Consumer Protection
eSeries
S.1
• In our last class we discussed Occupier’s Liability; We
were moving onto such liability with respect to children
• The important point to note here:
- Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful
than adults
Case 1: Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor (1922)
Case 2: Pearson v. Coleman Bros. (1948)
Case 3: Titchener v. British Railway Board (1983)
• As we have discussed in personal capacity, it is relevant to
consider the age and intelligence of the child in question
• Next; An Occupier may expect that a person, in
exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard
against any special risks ordinarily incidental to
it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so
- This is so since such a person will appreciate and
guard against such risks and need not be
warned about them
Case : General Cleaning Contractors v. Christmas
(1952)
• Next;
- It would not ordinarily be reasonable to expect an occupier of
premises having engaged a contractor whom he has reasonable
grounds for regarding as competent, to supervise the contractor’s
activities in order to ensure that he was discharging his duty to his
employees to observe a safe system of work;
- In special circumstances, on the other hand, where the occupier
knows or has reason to suspect that the contractor is using an
unsafe system of work, it might well be reasonable for the occupier
to take steps to see that the system was made safe.
Case : Ferguson v. Welsh (1987)