Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd
A contractor in control of works on premises can be an occupier, and a warning is not enough to discharge the duty unless it enables the visitor to be reasonably safe.
Facts
Charles Brand were contractors digging a tunnel for the London Underground, and they occupied the tunnel and the machine used to dig it. Mr Bunker, who was employed by subcontractors, was injured while walking over rollers in the tunnel to reach the front of the machine. He knew of the danger. The contractors argued that they were not occupiers, and that his knowledge of the danger discharged their duty.
Legal principle
O'Connor J held that the contractors were occupiers, because they had control of the tunnel and the machine, and that they were liable. The fact that Mr Bunker knew of the danger did not by itself discharge their duty, because under section 2(4)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, a warning is only enough if in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. His damages were reduced for contributory negligence.
Related cases on occupiers' liability
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] EWCA Civ 396
- Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189
- Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
- Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 953
- Laverton v Kiapasha [2002] EWCA Civ 1656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
