X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a multiplex Six weeks after X ent...........

Legal Reasoning Others

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.

The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, relationship proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.

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 building were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target to vandals and children who often played there, but X had no knowledge of previous attempts to start fire at the cinema buildings. The owner 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 owe a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?

An occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respects 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 vandal to start fire and as such the building did not present an obvious fire risk but 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 the fire.