CategoryTypesDefinitionStandard of care by occupierCase

Contractual entrantsDef: a person who is on the premises pursuant to a contractual rights1. Main purpose entrantPerson who enters the premises for the purpose of occupying it, and who has paid to be on the premises e.g tenant or a guest in the hotelEnsure premises is safe and adequate for the purposes for which it is contracted out, and the occupier must employ and exercise reasonable steps and expertise in the performance of duty.

This principle is limited as def cannot be held liable for defects to the construction,alteration, repair or maintenance that cannot be reasonably recovered.Maclenan v Segar Fact: Fire broke and P injured while escaped.

Held: D liable for failing to ensure premises was safe, as no emergency way out.

2. Ancillary purpose entrantPerson who has paid to be on the premises for the primary purpose of some activity other than as a personal dwelling e.g spectator at a sports event, passenger on a bus, patient at the private hosp.Ensure premises are safe for that particular purpose.

Spectators safety: Occupier must use reasonable care against those dangers that may reasonable assumed to be possible and expected according to nature of the sport.

Gillmore v London County Council (floor slippery)

Held: D liable for failure to ensure the floor is suitable for phy exercise.

Murray v Haaingay Arena

Held: court denied Ps claim when he was struck by a hockey puck while watching hockey game.

Invitees Def: a person who enters premises with permission or on the authority of the occupier. Purpose of entry is a common interest bet occupier and the invitee.Legally authorised entrants

Person who enter on the authority of the law e.g policemen, firemen.Shamsuddin v Yap Choh TehHeld: Def contractor was liable. Policeman was an invitee and duty of care was owned to him.

Business visitors

person who enter premises, be it public or private, for a materialistic reason and who actually bring economic advantages to the occupier e.g customer in a supermarket.Any danger which is known to him (or ought to be known by him) and which the invitee is ignorant of, is averted, whether by notice, lightning, guarding or otherwise.

In other words, duty is to prevent damage arising from unusual danger or unusual risk.

There is no absolute duty to prevent danger, but a duty to make the place least dangerous as such a place could reasonably be.Indemaur v Dames ( Ps gas-fitter fell thru a hole, and injured himself)

Held: this was an unusual danger which was in fact known to the D. Even though P as an invitee must take reasonable steps for his own safety, an occupier must reasonably avoid any damage that could arise from an extraordinary danger that is known to him or ought to be known by him.

Takong Tabari v GOS

Public invitees e.g person go to a public toilet or public swimming pool. Overlap with licensees. If entrance into a public buiding requires the entrant to pay a fee, then he is an invitee.

Licensee Def: person who enter premises with occupiers permission, express or implied. Occupier has no interest with the licensee on his premises.Entrant as of rightRight to enter into premises that are open to public e.g public park, public lavatory, public library, public swimming pool.Actual knowledge of the occupier as to the existence of danger is not necessary and the licensee visitor cannot assume that premises will be free from visible dangers. However, the occupier must take reasonable steps in the circumstances to avoid any damage from occurring, esp if danger is obvious.Aiken v Kingborough Corporation- suggested that entrants as of right cannot be categorised as either an invitee or a licensee. He does not seek the gratitious use of anothers property, and so he is entitled to expect that the premise is reasonably safe, not only for himself but for the public at large.

Social visitorsEnters the private premises with the permission of the def occupier or by invitation. Purpose is social in nature and does not confer any materialistic or economic advantage to the occupier e.g a guest.Yeap Cheng Hock v Kajima-Taisei Joint Venture (geologist)

Held: Def liable as the cause of injury was a concealed danger and was known or ought to be known by the Def.

Datuk Bandaraya v Ong Kok Peng

Entrant by implied permissionCourt implies a licence. He enters without any express restriction by the occupier. Court applies the doctrine of allurement, e.g a child enter a land due to some attraction on the land or someone who is not prevented to use the occupiers land in order to get to the other side of the land.The occupiers duty:Robert-Addie & Sons v Dumbreck- stated that a duty of care arise when 2 factors are established:

a. Occupiers knowledge- liable if he had actual knowledge as to the existence of danger and ought to have known the existence.

Case: Hawkins v Couldson v Purley

Held: D held liable as he knew one of the steps of the ladder was broken although he did not realize- the extent of danger.

b. Concealed dangerCase: Latham v R Johnson-stated that concealed danger consists of sth hidden or concealed and the element of surprise. The premises look safe but it is in fact a trap.

Sufficient if danger is sth licensee is not aware and could not be expected to be aware of.

Yeap Cheng Hock. If licensee has been warned, it ceases to be concealed and he is expected to take reasonable care of himself.

Children licenseeHigher as a child cannot be expected to be aware of the dangers that may be obvious to adult.Case ; Ramsay v Appel

Element of attraction was balanced with element of the degree of reasonable care exercised over the children in an objective manner.

It falls on the shoulder of the occupier that he has taken all reasonable precautions in the circumstances.Phillips v Rochester Corporation- enter to pluck some fruits. Danger visible to adult but not to children.

Held: no breach of duty as def had a right to assume that prudent parents would not allow their children to venture into open spaces without any control or ensuring the place was safe.

Kalaichelvi v Kinrara Group Estates-blade from grass-cutting machine

Held: 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 Enters premise without any express or implied permission from the occupier.Legally authorised person may become trespasser if goes into restricted area. Case: Willcox v Kettel

Where he stays on the premise beyond the time allowed.Case: Hourigan

Improper use of premiseCase: GOM v Kong EE KimAn occupier does not owe a duty to a trespasser as he has entered without permission and is therefore assumed to have accepted all risks and any danger there might be on the property.Case: Robbert-Addie v Dumbreck

Overrruled byCase: BRB v Herrington