Question

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.

Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties? 

Options

• An occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties under all circumstances.

• X was not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire and as such, the building did not present an obvious fire risk, so X was not under any duty to anticipate the possibility of fire and take measures to prevent the entry of vandals. So, no duty of care existed towards the adjoining properties in this case.

• Though X was not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire as such and the building did not present an obvious fire risk he failed to take reasonable care. So X is liable.

• X is not liable as the adjoining occupiers are also negligent by not being careful in safeguarding their properties against fire.

Answer 1

X was not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire and as such, the building did not present an obvious fire risk, so X was not under any duty to anticipate the possibility of fire and take measures to prevent the entry of vandals. So, no duty of care existed towards the adjoining properties in this case.

Explanation:

No duty of care exists in this case towards the adjoining properties. As it is, the building didn’t present an obvious risk of fire in ordinary course. X  was also not aware of the previous attempts by vandals to burn the building. Therefore, the harm was not reasonably foreseeable. It is therefore clear that X was not under any duty to anticipate the possibility of fire and take measures to prevent the same.