Law Reform and Occupier's Liability
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1956.tb00352.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| Author | D. W. Bowett |
LAW
REFORM
AND
OCCUPIER’S
LIABILITY
THE
Third Report of the Law Reform Committee’ is by now
familiar enough
in
its main recommendations, and
it
is not pro-
posed to attempt here
an
exhaustive survey
or
commentary upon
the Report as
a
whole, but rather to consider three aspects of
it;
these are the recommendations
in
paragraph
70
on
the duty of
landlords remaining in occupation of the means of access to leased
premises, the recommendation
in
paragraph
88
on
the application
of the principles of occupier’s liability to movable structures, and
the absence of any recommendation on whether liability is generally
to be confined to structural defects.
THE
LIABILITY
OF
TEE
OCCUPIES
OF
THE
MEANS
OF
ACCESS
In
paragraph
7ga
the Committee, after referring to the injustices
which may be caused by too rigid an adherence to the conventional
categories and citing
Fairman
v.
Perpetual Investment
Building
Society
and
Jacobs
v.
L.
C.
C.4
as
illustrations
of
these injustices,
makes the following recommendation
:
“that where the lessor of any building
or
part of a building
remains in occupation of the means
of
access to the demised
premises, he should owe the common duty of care to any third
party lawfully using the means of access unless a more onerous
duty is imposed
on
the lessor by the tenancy agreement.”
It
is
difficult to understand why, in principle, this recommendation
should be confined to situations where a lessor remains in occu-
pation
of
the means of access to demised premises;
so
far
as
the lawful visitor is concerned his rights ought to lie against the
occupier of the means
of
access he
is
lawfully using, and whether
that occupier is a lessor
or
a vendor of the premises which the
visitor intends to approach should,
it
is submitted, be immaterial.
To
take an example, let us suppose
X
initially leases Blackacre to
Y,
retaining control and occupation
of
the means of access;
no
one
doubts. that the right of way enjoyed by
Y
extends to all persons
authorised by him, in fact to all
his
“lawful and the
effect
of
the Committee’s recommendation would be, quite properly,
to impose
on
X
the uniform
or
common duty of care towards those
1
Cmd.
9306,
H.M.S.O.,
London, 1964. Presented by the Lord High Chancellor
2
And pare.
96
(9)
of
the Summery
of
Recommendetions.
J
[1929] A.C. 74.
4
[1960] A.C.
961.
5
Bazendale
v.
North Lambeth Liberal
and
Radica1,Flub
Ltd.
[1902]
2,X 427,
pev
Swinfen E8dy.J. at p. 429. This
is
not
an implied eseement
for
the
visitor hoe
no
dominant tenant.
to
Parliament, November 1964.
1’12
To continue reading
Request your trial