Occupier's Liability

Q: A friend of mine came over to my house for a birthday party. She tripped on some loose tiles and ended up fracturing her wrist when she fell. Am I responsible even though I didn't know?

A: Yes, you are responsible. As an occupier, you are responsible for injuries to certain persons on your property/premises; this is called occupier's liability.

Here’s the law surrounding this topic.

Who is an occupier?

According to Wheat v Lacon (1966), an occupier exercises a sufficient degree of control over the premises

In this case,  4 categories of Occupiers were identified:

1. If the landlord rents the premises to a tenant, then the tenant is the occupier.
2. If the landlord rents the premises, he remains liable for common areas such as stairs, gardens etc.
3. If the landlord grants a licence, then both are occupiers.
4. If the landlord engages an independent contractor, then the landlord remains the occupier BUT the independent contractor may be the occupier if he has a high level of control.

What are premises?

“… any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.”

Dangerous Premises

Occupiers must keep premises in a reasonably safe condition. There must be “negligence”, “defect” or “danger” with the premises for a claim to succeed.

Categories of persons on property:

Visitors

Anyone with expressed or implied permission to be on the property.

Includes permission granted by law:

ž  Police Officers and Health Inspectors.

ž  Jehovah’s Witnesses? Political Canvassers?

Robson v. Hallet (1967)

“...when a householder lives in a dwelling house to which there is a garden in front and does not lock the gate of the garden it gives an implied licence to any member of the public who has lawful reason for doing so to proceed from the gate to the front door or the back door...”

Trespassers

According to Addie v Dumbreck [1929], there is no duty of care owed to trespassers. The only duty was not to inflict harm wilfully.

Poll results: Should abortions be legalized in T&T?

I found the results to be very interesting... I'm pro-choice. 

Salary and benefit payments during business closure

Q: If a business is closing down and I am about to go on maternity leave do they still have to pay me as well as I have two weeks’ vacation pending do they have to pay me for that as well?

A: You have to receive your salary/wages as long as they can afford it. This all depends on how the business is closing down and then the priority of debt payments. There are a few terms involved in this process; i.e. insolvency (compulsory or voluntary), receivership, liquidation, bankruptcy and administration. So it depends on the category which the company falls under when closing down.

Winding-up

Salaries have secondary priority to the government debts (taxes, NIS, etc.). According to the Companies Act 1995, as amended-s.435(1)(b):

all wages or salary (whether or not earned wholly or in part by way of commission or for time or piece work) of any employee, not being a director, in respect of services rendered to the company during four months next before the relevant date;

Bankruptcy & Insolvency

If the company is bankrupt, wages have 4^th place priority according to The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, 2006 - s.127(d):

excluding severance, claims for wages, salaries, commissions or compensation of any employee for services rendered during the six months immediately preceding the bankruptcy, together with disbursements properly incurred by a traveling salesman in and about the bankrupt’s business, during the same period, so as not to exceed such amount as may be prescribed by Order in each case;

The law is not explicit as to whether unused vacation and maternity leave are included in debt payments, but it's a unique matter that I would love to put to the test.