Key Features Of Ordinary Negligence And Occupiers

Ordinary Negligence and Occupiers’ Liability – Comparing Principles. Based on the discussion above, we can retrieve the key features of both ordinary negligence and occupier’s liability. In essence, the ordinary idea of negligence is when you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm. The plaintiff must establishes three factors to constitute negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. What is duty of care in this context? It is the responsibility to avoid careless actions that could cause harm to one or more persons. Secondly, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the defendant failed to succumb to the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation. Standard of care is a way of measuring how much care one person owes another. For example, doctors or nurses, have a high standard of care toward others than the reasonable person. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Determining the cause, is often done by applying the “but for” test. An injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s actions. In short, a person must firstly has a duty of care and he breached his duty that causes damages or loss to the other party to be liable for negligence.

This legal obligation is particularly called occupiers’ liability. An occupier of premises owes a duty to take that care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that person, and the person’s property, on the premises, and property on the premises of a person, whether or not that person personally enters on the premises, will be reasonably safe in using the premises. This duty of care is applied in relation to the condition of the premises, activities on the premises, or conduct of third parties on the premises. This formulation on occupiers’ liability is summarised from a legit decision made by a distinct judge and also derived from the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 of

However, in the efforts of reviewing any cases which involves the occupiers’ liability, wherever its reference is needed, shall be regulated in the tort of negligence. The difference between an ordinary negligence claim and a negligence claim for occupiers’ liability rests on the standard of care required of the defendant occupier. While at common law it was necessary to distinguish between invitees, licensees, and trespassers, particularly the first two categories, under the OLA 1957 a ‘visitor’ includes those who were categorize as invites or licences at common law. Other than visitors, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 regulates the duty owed by an occupier to persons who are non-visitors or trespassers too. Because the liability in England is based on statute, it is more popular than actions for negligence per se. In Malaysia, as mentioned before, the law treats occupiers’ liability as a subhead of ordinary negligence. Meaning, that there is no tort of occupiers’ liability. As stated by Lord Wright in the case of Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] AC 448 at 461 he simplifies the idea of occupiers’ liability as ‘special