Negligence: occupiers liability

Occupiers liability concerns the duty of care that those who occupy property owe to people who visit or trespass.It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises.
"premises"- any building or land that owed by the 'D'. The 'D' in this situation have 2 types:
(1) the person actually occupying the premises (his responsibility is generally for personal injuries such as broken ankle sustained when a ratten floorboard gives way)
(2) someone other than the occupier may be liable for defects in the premises.

Case : Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (define the occupiers liability)
- Ps owned a public house which Mr R was their manager. Mr R n his wife were allowed by agreement to live in the upper floor, access to which was by a door separate from the licensed premised. An accident was sustained by a paying guest on the stair case leading to the upper floor. It was held that although C was injured in the private area of the premises, Ds ( along Mr R & Mrs R) were liable. They had enough residual control over that part of the premises to be treated as occupiers.
- in this case, its clarifies that there may 2 or more occupiers simultaneously & that exclusive occupation is not required.

Case: AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd
- both a contractor & owner were held to have sufficient control to be joint occupiers of the premises in which the claimant's equipment was damaged by rainwater entering the building via leaking doorway.

Visitor- those person who were invitees & licensees that is anyone whom an occupier gave any invitation or permission to enter or use his premise.
-an occupier is therefore someone who has the immediate supervision & control & the power of of permitting of prohibiting the entry of the persons.

Case: Chang Fah Lin v United Engineers (M) Sdn Bhd
- it was held that if a contractor is shown to have overall charge & control & possession of a construction site, then he may deemed to have occupation as well as possession of the site, together with overall responsibility.

Case: China Insurance Co Ltd v Wah Hup (Pte) Ltd
- Chua J held that the contractor of a construction site was an occupier of the premises.