3. DANGEROUS PREMISES. The occupier must take reasonable care to see that any person who enters land or buildings lawfully will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted to be there. A warning of danger is only effective if in all the circumstances it is sufficient to enable the person to be reasonably safe. The contractor will usually be the occupier of the site, but the employer may be a joint occupier if he has a degree of control from presence on and use of the site or works in course of construction.
An occupier even has some duty to a trespasser. His liability is to do what in the circumstances a conscientious humane man, with his knowledge, skill and resources, would do to prevent injury:
Workmen of demolition contractors lit a bonfire to burn rubbish. The site was next to a public park. The men failed to keep a look-out for children coming on to the site although they had taken down the hoardings. A five year old boy, who had been chased off the site repeatedly, came back to see the fire. The contractors were held liable to pay compensation for his severe burns.
4. NEGLIGENCE. There is in most cases liability for not taking reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which a “reasonable man” would foresee would be likely to cause injury or damage to the person or property of another:
A pedestrian was injured when he fell into a trench excavated along the pavement in a popular part of London. The contractors had placed warning notices at both ends of the trench and a hammer with a long handle raised and sloping across the pavement. The pedestrian injured, a blind man who missed the handle with his stick, recovered damages from the contractors on the grounds that they should have foreseen the possibility of blind people using the pavement, and taken special precautions. e
Employer’s liability under (c) above. An employer is very widely liable for the safety of his employees (that is, the contractor for his labour under the contract, not the “employer”). He is bound to see that reasonable care is taken to supply them with and maintain proper plant and appliances and material, and to see that they have a safe place of work and a safe system of work, and he is also liable for any injury caused to an employee by the negligence of any other employee of his:
A, an employee at an electrical sub-station, was injured while making a test because he removed a screen between the dead and live parts of the switchboard.
A had learned to do this from a fellow employee and had then pointed out the dangers, but had been told that if no risks were taken nothing would be done, and, in fact, the usual practice in the station was to remove the screen. A had later been appointed to do dangerous work and had been given a copy of the regulations, which forbade removal of the screen, and told to make himself familiar with them.
Held: A’s employers were liable for his injuries; they had not provided a safe system of work simply by telling him to follow these regulations, and even if they had originally supplied a safe system they had allowed it to be ignored. A was not himself guilty of contributory negligence, because he had followed the example of his superiors.
网友评论