Question

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

FACTUAL SITUATION: Radhika's brother, Akash, had come to visit at her place. After seeing her wealth. Akash decided to commit theft that night. While he was trying to escape that night he got electrocuted by the wires, which were fixed on the boundary walls. Akash plans sue Radhika. Will his claim succeed?

• A. Yes, because in Indian tradition, guests are like Gods.
• B. No, because one has to be himself cautious about his safety.
• C. Yes, because it is the occupiers' duty to take care of its visitors.
• D. No, because he himself is guilty of theft. He is no longer an invitee or visitor.

Answer 1

The correct option is D No, because he himself is guilty of theft. He is no longer an invitee or visitor.

As per the principle of occupier's liability laid down in the case of Wheat v Lacon an occupier owes a reasonable duty of care to all visitors who include entrants as of right, contractually present on the premises, lawfully present or present unlawfully but preparing to leave on realizing of unlawful presence. However, as was established in another case of Burton Construction and Shipbuilding Co. v Broussard, a person may be invitee to one part of the premises but not to the other parts. So, an occupier is liable only to the extent of injury sustained by the user while using the area designated for his accommodation or use. No liability for damage is sustainable when it cannot be reasonably concluded that the visitor would attempt to go to that place. In this case, Radhika could not have assumed that her brother would attempt to go to the boundary walls.