CLAT Legal Reasoning Challenge #1 - Occupier's Liability - Law of Torts
CLAT 2023 Practice Questions
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions based on it.
Occupier’s liability is concerned with the duty of occupier’s to take care of ensuring the safety
of persons within the premises. The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 and Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 are the
two acts which currently govern liability in this field In both Acts, an occupier owes a duty of care in respect to dangers due to the state of the premises, or to things done, or omitted to be done on them. – Section 1(1) OLA 1957 and Section 1(1) (a) OLA 1984.
The common duty of care, that of reasonableness applies, [Section 2(2) OLA 1957, and Section 1(4) OLA 1984]. Nonetheless, the duty of care in OLA 1984 only exists when circumstances in Section 1 (3) are met.
The common duty of care under Section 2(2) OLA 1957 is a duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes r which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’. Therefore, in determining a breach of duty, regard would be given to the degree of care and the required standard of care as employed in negligent claims.
The 1957 act, abolishes the common law categories and provides that all lawful entrants are owed the same 'common duty of care'. This duty is owed by the occupier to his visitors 'in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them according to Section 1(1)(a).
Important Changes made by the Occupier’s Liability Act:
The first, important change made by the new law is that the occupier owes the same duty to all his visitors that is, persons who are lawfully on the premises whether by his invitation or permission. The act, therefore,
does away with the difference between the two categories of persons, invitees, and licensees and his duties towards them. Whereas under the old law there were three categories of persons, invitees, licensees and trespassers and a graduated scale of duties towards them under the new law there are only two categories, visitors and trespassers.
The act proceeds to state some principles for guidance in considering the circumstances which may affect the degree of care required of the occupier. The first principle- circumstances would include the degree of re and of want of care which would be ordinarily looked for in the visitor. The second principle- the act deals with the effect of warning given by the occupier to the visitor about a particular danger. The third principle- the act deals with the responsibility of the occupier for a danger created by the fault of an independent contractor employed by him. It is enacted that he will not be answerable to the harm caused to the visitor if the occupier has acted reasonably.
Summary of the passage
Question 1
The defendants were owners of a public house, the management of which they entrusted to a manager.
By virtue of the service agreement, the manager was entitled to live in a flat above the public house and to
take in paying guests. There was no direct access between the pub and the flat, both parts having separate
entrances. W and his wife were paying guests of the manager. W was fatally injured when he fell down an
unlit and defective staircase in the pub W's wife sued the defendants and the main issue was who was in
occupation of the pub because according to established law, the occupier of the property would be liable.
From the given facts, who would we liable in this case?
a. Manager is liable because he lives in the same building and thus he owes the responsibilities to the
visitors.
b. Defendants are liable, because they are the owner of the building and they have real control on building
activities.
c. Manager is liable, because he owes responsibilities to all guests, as he has control over all the activities
of building.
d. Defendants are liable, because although manager lives in the building, he has no control over the
activities of building.
Question 2
Mr and Mrs Sharma went to Hotel HansRaj to celebrate there second wedding anniversary. After having
dinner, when they were leaving, Mr Sharma suddenly fell over Balustrade. Because of this incident, Mr
Sharma has suffered some fatal injuries. Mrs Sharma, filed a complain in the court demanding
compensation of Rupees 20 Lakhs for medical expenses and mental agony suffered by the couple. From
the investigation it came out that Hotel was renovated recently and owners of the hotel used to take
reasonable care of their guests. But investigation also pointed out that the Balustrade was lower than
permitted by BSI standards.
(a) Owners of the hotel are liable because they had not taken reasonable amount of care of their invites
and visitors.
(b) Owners of the hotel are not liable because they had taken reasonable amount of care of their invites
and visitors.
(c) Owners of the hotel are liable, as Mr Sharma has suffered injuries in the premises of hotel because of
their negligent act.
(d) Owners of the hotel are not liable, because although Mr Sharma has suffered injuries in the premises
of hotel, owners can do nothing to prevent the incident.
Question 3
A, a visitor in public park, was hit by a golf ball that was thrown by C who was playing golf at the park. A,
the complainant, filed a suit against B, the owner of public park in which the golf game was being played.
Complainant alleged that defendant knew that golf balls were regularly hit in that particular areas but did
nothing to stop it and thus they are liable for the act. Whereas, defendant claimed, that it was not their fault
but fault of third party i.e. A, that led to injuries to complainant.
Who is liable for the injuries of complainant?
(a) B is liable, because the fact that they knew about golf ball hitting a particular area, but had done nothing
about it, shows the omission in his part.
(b) C is liable, because it is him who threw ball in that direction and injured to complainant.
(c) B is liable, because being the owner the public part, he owes the duty to his visitors and would be liable
for every injury happened to his visitors within his premises.
(d) C is liable because he has not taken reasonable amount of care of the fellow visitors in the park.
Question 4
The defendant was the owner of the land which was used by the public as a shortcut from and to the railway
station. The defendant objected to this practice but had never taken effective action against the same. The
plaintiff, while crossing the field was injured by the horse which was owned by the defendant. The defendant
contended that the plaintiff here, was a trespasser and therefore he had no duty against him.
Who would be liable for the injuries of plaintiff?
(a) Defendant is liable because plaintiff was injured by his horse and on his land only. Thus defendant
failed to take reasonable care of his visitors.
(b) Defendant is not liable because plaintiff was a trespasser and defendant owe no duty to trespassers.
(c) Defendant is liable because although plaintiff is a trespasser but since the defendant had failed to take
effective action against the trespassers for such a long time, therefore the presence of the consent of
the defendant can be assumed in such circumstances.
(d) Defendant is not liable because he has taken reasonable care to avoid any harm to his visitors.