Defendant was doing work to the front of a house, next door to one occupied by X, blocking the main entrance to X’s house, so that they only left a dangerous alternative route.
Plaintiff, a visitor, was injured while using this dangerous alternative route, and HL allowed her claim of negligence against Defendant (minus contributory negligence since she had declined help on the route).
Owed a duty to all who might be expected lawfully to visit the house to take reasonable care to ensure that they were not exposed to danger.
Where Plaintiff was aware of the danger but, in all the circumstances, a reasonable person would have risked incurring it, the contractors were not absolved from liability either by giving a warning or by reliance on the respondent's knowledge.
In considering what a reasonable person would realize or would do in a particular situation, “reasonable” does not necessarily equal what the majority of people would have done.
It is irrelevant that Defendant would not have had a right to put up warnings/fencing along the dangerous route in X’s property since it was they who caused the initial danger by blocking the main entrance.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (70 pages) |
Tort Law | Occupier's Liability Notes (27 pages) |