면책조항: 이것은 법률 자문이 아닙니다. 법률과 판례는 변경됩니다. 귀하의 특정 상황에 대해 항상 자격을 갖춘 변호사와 상담하십시오.

모든 판례
Tort Law
House of Lords
1966

Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd

[1966] AC 552

판결 이유

There may be more than one occupier of premises for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. An occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises to be under a duty of care to visitors.

사실관계

Mr Wheat, a paying guest at a public house, fell down an unlit staircase and died. The pub was owned by Lacon (a brewery company) but managed by a couple who lived in the private quarters. The question was whether Lacon was an 'occupier' of the private quarters.

판결 요약

The House of Lords held that both the brewery and the managers were occupiers. However, on the facts, neither had breached their duty — the staircase was not inherently dangerous and a third party had removed the light bulb.

주요 인용문

"Wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an 'occupier'."

Lord Denning

후속 처리

Good law

Leading authority on the definition of 'occupier' and dual occupation under the 1957 Act.