header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Negligence

Gilman v UPS Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 2341 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 61 (Aug)

The duty of care owed by an occupier was in principle capable of extending to dangers arising out of the acts or defaults of third parties visiting the occupier's premises, whether as employees, sub-contractors, licensees or even trespassers, and even when such dangers arose from normally innocuous activities, such as driving or parking vehicles. However, whether or not such a duty arose on the facts of a particular case would depend on the particular facts as found. In a case such as the instant case, the court should proceed on the basis that an occupier was not, without more, liable for the negligence of an invitee which caused damage to persons or property on adjacent land, particularly where that licensee was engaged in an activity not dangerous in itself such as driving or parking a vehicle, which he might be expected to do carefully. However, if the occupier was or should reasonably have been aware of a reasonably foreseeable risk of danger

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll