Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:53:54.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tort—Invitees, Licensees and Trespassers

A Comment on the Third Report of the haw Reform Committee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

F. J. Odgers
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case and Comment
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1955 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cmd. 9305. October, 1954.

2 Decided in 1941: reported in [1953] 2 All E.R. 1185.

3 Francis v. Cockrell (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 184; Maclenan v. Segar [1917] 2 K.B. 325.

4 Gillmore v. L. C. C. (1938) 159 L.T. 615; Protheroe v. Railway Executive [1951] 1 K.B. 376; Bell v. Travco Hotels, Ltd. [1953] 1 Q.B. 473.

5 See Fosbroke-Hobbes v. Airwork, Ltd. [1937] 1 All E.R. 108.

6 [1951] 2 K.B. 529; cf. Lockett v. Charles [1938] 4 All E.R. 170 on an implied condition in sale of goods.

7 [1941] 2 K.B. 343, at p. 352.

8 [1949] 2 All E.R. 191.

9 (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 274.

10 [1951] A.C. 737.

11 But they think it possible that if a case involving comparable facts were to reach the House of Lords it might there be held that facts such as those in Haseldine v. Daw sufficed to warrant an exception to the general rule laid down in Thomson v. Cremin.

12 [1938] 1 K.B. 212.

13 [1950] 2 K.B. 353.

14 [1953] 1 W.L.R. 882; affirmed by Court of Appeal [1954] 1 Q.B. 319.

15 A distinction stressed by Denning L.J. in Dunster v. Abbott [1953] 2 Al. E.R. 1572, at p. 1574; [1954] 1 W.L.R. 58.

16 17 M.L.R. (1954) 102.

17 See Clerk and Lindsell, 11th ed., 1954, p. 691; Lord, Atkin in Hillen v. I. C. I. (Alkali), Ltd. [1936] A.C. 65, at p. 70;Google ScholarEdwards v. Railway Executive [1952] A.C. 737; contra Salmond, 11th ed., 1953, pp. 586–7.Google Scholar

18 Lowery v. Walker [1911] A.C. 10; Edwards v. Railway Executive (supra).

19 [1955] 1 All E.R. 129.

20 Fairman v. Perpetual Investment Building Society [1923] A.C. 74; Jacobs v. L. C. C. [1950] A.C. 361.

21 See Atkin, L.J. in Coleshill v. Manchester Corporation [1928] 1 K.B. 776, at p. 791.Google Scholar

22 But see Dunster v. Abbott [1953] 2 All E.R. 1572; [1954] 1 W.L.R. 58, in which a canvasser for advertisements was regarded as a licensee only.

23 [1954] K.B. 174.

24 Cavalier v. Pope [1906] A.C. 428; Ryall v. Kidwell [1913] 3 K.B. 123.

25 [1932] A.C. 562.

26 “Reasonable care to see that the premises are reasonably safe” is apparently deliberate wording.

27 Stated fully in para. 78 (iii) but paraphrased in para. 95A (2) (iii).