Facebook Pixel Code
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.


This is a preview of the 4-page document
Read full text

Subsequently, te case of enlarged the scope of the duty owed to a trespasser by including the duty of common humanity. I this case a six – year old child intruded on railway premises by going through a hole in the fence from an adjacent children’s play ground. Te child went to an electrified railway line and was electrocuted there. Sveral incidents of the fence having been broken at several places had been taking place. I was well established that the railway authorities had knowledge of the same they were well aware of the fact that children often intruded through the holes from the nearby playground.

I spite of this, tey had not taken any measures to prevent trespass by children. Te Court held that the railway authorities were responsible for the electrocution of the child as they owed a common duty of humanity. Te court further held that occupiers of property were expected to act in a humane manner with regard to trespassers, o the basis of their own knowledge, aility and resources2. Te Occupier’s Liability had not accorded sufficient importance to the duty of humanity.

Te duty of humanity requires the occupier to initiate appropriate measures in order to prevent intruders from known dangers and to avert personal injuries. Te occupant was not required to inspect the premises for possible dangers. I Pannett v McGuinness, te defendants were demolition contractors and were burning rubbish on the site. Te defendants engaged three workmen to supervise the fire and prevent children from entering these premises. Wile the workmen were away from the site, Pnnet, achild five etered the premises and fell into the fire.

I was a fact that the child was a trespasser and the evidence revealed that on several occasions, cildren had intruded upon the premises and had been chased away. Te court held that the defendants were culpable because they had failed to take appropriate steps to prevent children from entering their premises, dspite knowing that children were about to enter their premises3. Isues hindering the exercise of public rights or public health, sfety and convenience comprise misuse or interference. order to a redressal action in tort, caimants have to establish that they suffered damage over and above what had been suffered by the public at large.

I Attorney General v. PA Quarries, te.. .

This is a preview of the 4-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Unsorted
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Unsorted
Hire a Writer
preview essay on The LAW of TORT - UNIT 3 ESSAY 3
  • Pages: 4 (1000 words)
  • Document Type: Essay
  • Subject: Unsorted
  • Level: Ph.D.
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us