Licensees

This category types of entrants in occupiers liability refers to a person who enters the premises with the occupiers gratuitous permission, be it express or implied. Usually, the occupier does not have any interest in the presence of licensee on his premises, unlike a contractual entrant & an invitee. There are 3 types of licensees:
(i) entrant as of right
(ii) social visitors
(iii) an entrant by implied permission

Entrant as of right means those have the right to enter into premises that are open to the public such as public park, public lavatory, public library & any other building open to the public. Actual knowledge of the occupier as to the existence of danger is not necessary & the licensee visitor cannot assume that the premises will be free from visible dangers. The occupier must however, take reasonable steps in the circumstances to avoid damage from occurring, especially if the danger is obvious.
case: Aiken v Kinborough Corporation

Social visitors is one who enters into private premises with the permission of the occupier or by invitation. His purpose for being on the premises is social in nature & does not confer any materialistic or economic advantage to the occupier. In the case Yeap Cheng Hock v Kajima-Taisei Joint Venture, P, who was a geologist, was injured during a visit to a mine, the visit being for his own purpose. Syed Agil Barakbah J stated that at Common Law, a licensee is a person who enters premises with the consent of the occupier based on the occupier gratuitous permission & not for any business purposes. The P in this case was held to be a licensee & not an invitee. The D was found liable as the cause of the injury, which was a projection of rock in a tunnel, was a concealed danger & was known or ought to have been known by the D.

case: Datuk Bandar Dewan Bandaraya v Ong Kok Peng & Anor.

Besides, entrant by implied permission is for those who enters the premises without any express restriction by the occupier. The court applies the doctrine of allurement in this category such as a child entering a piece of land due to some attraction on the land, or someone who is not prevented to use the occupier's land in order to get to the other side of the land.

Children Licensees.
If the licensee is a child, the duty on the occupier is higher as a child cannot be expected to be aware of dangers that may be obvious to adults. In the case Phipps v Rochester Corporation, 2 children entered into D's area to pluck some fruits. The fell & injured themselves. The danger was visible to adults but not to children. The children were held to be licensees.
If the parents/guardian have exercised reasonable care for the safety of their child, it falls on the shoulders of the occupier to show that he has taken all reasonable precautions in the circumstances. In the case Kalaichelvi v Kinkara Group Estates Ltd, a 3 years old girl standing near the front door of her house was hit by the object which flew from the blade of a grass-cutting tractor nearby. The court held that the licensor occupier must act with the reasonable diligence to prevent his premises from misleading or entrapping licensee. due to the girl's age, she could not have known the danger. Consequently the machine should not have been operated so close to children without any precautions to prevent foreseeable injury.

Trespasser.
Trespasser is for those who enters premises without any express or implied permission of the occupier. His existence on the premises may not be known to the occupier. Examples: Wondering child, thief, person who has lost his way & ors.
In case of Robert Addie & Sons v Dumbreck, the court stated that in general, an occupier does not owe a duty to a trespasser as he had entered without permission & is therefore assumed to have accepted all risk & any danger there might be on the property.

other case: British Railways Board v Harrington

End..:>