Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that "Trespassers will be prosecuted". However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him

DECIDE.

• A. Lalit is not liable as he had given a clear notice.
• B. Lalit is liable for having kept a bull on his farm
• C. Lalit, is not liable to the people other than his customers
• D. Lalit is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises

Answer 1

The correct option is A Lalit is not liable as he had given a clear notice.

• In the landmark case of Wheat v Lacons the House of Lords laid down a duty of care to be exercised by the occupier of a premise towards his invitees and visitors. The case was decided as per the definition of occupier in the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957.
  
• In this case, the visitors were referred to as persons who were either entrants as of right or by contractual obligation or lawfully present or ones present unlawfully but are making preparations to leave after being aware of being unlawfully present in the premises. A trespasser is not included in this definition. In another landmark case of Revill v Newberry it was held that a trespasser (not invited to the premise expressly) cannot sue the occupier for any damage or loss caused to him. In the present instance, the notice is sufficient to declare entrants into the farm as trespassers.