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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll