Question

Legal Principle:
An occupier is liable towards lawful visitors only and not towards trespassers.

Facts: The proprietor of a circus, was giving a circus performance in a tent in a field. The animals were kept nearby in cages in the area known as ‘zoo lager’. The plaintiff, a girl of seven, who had gone to witness the circus show, went out of the tent to find out a convenient place where she could relieve herself. She came near a cage through the bars of which a lion put his paw out and mauled her.

a. The child was trespasser when she entered the zoo lager; proprietor of the circus is not liable.
b. The child was a lawful visitor; proprietor of circus is liable, as he had failed to cordon off the prohibited area.
c. The proprietor of the circus is not liable, as the parents had been careless in letting the child slip away.
d. The proprietor is liable as it was the lion which mauled the child.

Answer 1

Answer:

Sorry sis i don't know this answer

Answer 2

Answer:

In the landmark case of Wheat v Lacons the House of Lords laid down a duty of care to be exercised by the occupier of a premise towards his invitees and visitors. The case was decided as per the definition of occupier in the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957. 

In this case, the visitors were referred to as persons who were either entrants as of right or by contractual obligation or lawfully present or ones present unlawfully but are making preparations to leave after being aware of being unlawfully present in the premises. A trespasser is not included in this definition. In another landmark case of Revill v Newberry it was held that a trespasser (not invited to the premise expressly) cannot sue the occupier for any damage or loss caused to him. In the present instance, the notice is sufficient to declare entrants into the farm as trespassers.