176:
that he might go upon it safely because it would bear his weight, was led into what has been called a trap, by which he sustained an injury. He was there upon the invitation of the dock company, and although it is true that the staging was used for painting a ship, it was part of the appliances, supplied by the dock company for purposes connected with the carrying on of their business. It was one of the facilities given by which they induced vessels to use their docks that they did supply these appliances It was said that they had invited the plaintiff to come upon that staging, and that they were responsible if the man so invited was led into the trap by means of which he was injured.
318:
324:
24:
189:
Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger of injury to the
175:
was part of the facilities which the dock afforded, just as they did by their cranes, their warehouses, or any other appliances, to the vessels that came to use their docks. This particular appliance was in such a condition that a person going upon it, trusting, as he would have a right to trust,
166:
used for ship works, and Mudit was a ship painter who was using some staging slung over the side of a ship he was painting, supported by ropes. These ropes had previously been damaged and evidence showed that they were unfit for use. The painter was injured. In a summary advanced in relation to a
193:
Tort law should assume a broad view of this area. If any person with ordinary sense realises that if they did not proper care and skill, damage could be occasioned to another or another's property from their actions, they should be held
256:
was owed by an occupier of land (the owner of the dry dock) to invitees (the employees of the contractor who were on the site to the economic benefit ultimately of the dry dock owner).
401:
249:
88:
367:
60:
143:
67:
406:
208:
107:
41:
74:
391:
45:
56:
396:
386:
360:
333:
272:
223:
34:
81:
353:
292:
228:
190:
person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary skill and avoid such danger.
8:
341:
204:
147:
337:
215:
to those who might be injured if "ordinary care and skill" was not exercised.
380:
317:
253:
219:
237:
233:
151:
23:
163:
171:, Lord Herschell stated that the dry dock's supporting apparatus
298:
211:, suggested that there was a wider duty to be responsible in
212:
232:, when the general concept of a tortious duty of care in
150:
case, which foreshadowed the birth of the modern law of
252:was content to decide the case on the basis that a
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
378:
361:
368:
354:
222:views would later be expressly adopted by
402:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
336:, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
169:Caledonian Railway Co. v. Warwick (1897)
297:UKHL 54, 35 SLR 54 (16 November 1897),
379:
311:
46:adding citations to reliable sources
17:
13:
198:
14:
418:
294:Caledonian Railway Co. v. Warwick
243:
209:William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher
322:
316:
22:
33:needs additional citations for
286:
266:
1:
259:
340:. You can help Knowledge by
7:
283:. Accessed 19 January 2021.
180:
167:later House of Lords case,
10:
423:
310:
301:, accessed 25 January 2023
334:law in the United Kingdom
332:This article relating to
226:in the House of Lords in
127:
122:
407:United Kingdom law stubs
162:Mahi was the owner of a
157:
185:(Brett MR – minority):
236:was established under
196:
178:
392:English tort case law
187:
173:
229:Donoghue v Stevenson
142:(1883) (11 QBD 503,
42:improve this article
397:1883 in British law
281:Lawyer, Interrupted
205:Master of the Rolls
277:(1883) 11 QBD 503"
349:
348:
135:
134:
131:(1883) 11 QBD 503
118:
117:
110:
92:
57:"Heaven v Pender"
414:
387:1883 in case law
370:
363:
356:
328:
327:
326:
325:
320:
312:
302:
290:
284:
270:
148:English tort law
120:
119:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
422:
421:
417:
416:
415:
413:
412:
411:
377:
376:
375:
374:
323:
321:
315:
308:
306:
305:
291:
287:
275:Heaven v Pender
271:
267:
262:
246:
201:
199:Court of Appeal
183:
160:
144:Court of Appeal
139:Heaven v Pender
123:Heaven v Pender
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
420:
410:
409:
404:
399:
394:
389:
373:
372:
365:
358:
350:
347:
346:
329:
304:
303:
285:
264:
263:
261:
258:
250:House of Lords
245:
244:House of Lords
242:
200:
197:
182:
179:
159:
156:
133:
132:
129:
125:
124:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
419:
408:
405:
403:
400:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
385:
384:
382:
371:
366:
364:
359:
357:
352:
351:
345:
343:
339:
335:
330:
319:
314:
313:
309:
300:
296:
295:
289:
282:
278:
276:
269:
265:
257:
255:
251:
241:
239:
235:
231:
230:
225:
221:
216:
214:
210:
206:
195:
191:
186:
177:
172:
170:
165:
155:
153:
149:
145:
141:
140:
130:
126:
121:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
342:expanding it
331:
307:
293:
288:
280:
274:
268:
254:duty of care
247:
227:
217:
202:
192:
188:
184:
174:
168:
161:
138:
137:
136:
104:
98:January 2021
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
238:English law
218:Brett MR's
381:Categories
260:References
234:negligence
224:Lord Atkin
152:negligence
68:newspapers
146:) was an
181:Judgment
164:dry dock
128:Citation
194:liable.
82:scholar
299:BAILII
220:obiter
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
158:Facts
89:JSTOR
75:books
338:stub
248:The
213:tort
203:The
61:news
44:by
383::
279:.
240:.
207:,
154:.
369:e
362:t
355:v
344:.
273:"
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
