Swain v Nati Ram Puri [1996] PIQR P442
Plaintiff climbed a high fence to trespass onto Defendant’s land, climbed onto Defendant’s roof and, because the roof was dangerous, fell through and was injured. Defendant did not know that Plaintiff was or might come onto the roof.
Plaintiff claimed that the words “reason able grounds to believe” from s.1(3)(b) means “ought to know” and therefore that it was no defence for Defendant to state that he did not know that Plaintiff was or might climb onto the roof.
CA dismissed the claim, stating that actual knowledge was required and that “reasonable grounds to believe” did NOT equal “ought to know”.
Pill LJ
“Reasonable grounds to believe” means that, aside from actual knowledge, O also owes a duty if he knows of all the facts from which he can draw the inference that NV might enter the vicinity but chooses to “turn a blind eye.
A man cannot claim he has no knowledge when he has shut his eyes to the obvious. Nor can he claim that he has no knowledge when he has knowledge of what are sometimes called primary facts and has not drawn the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those primary facts.
Here, Defendant did not have reasonable grounds to believe or actual knowledge that Plaintiff could or might enter the vicinity of the danger and therefore no duty was owed.
‘Reasonable grounds to believe’ does NOT mean ‘ought to have been aware’.
Similar cases
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.