Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps, if any, as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.

  • The English seems perfectly straightforward to me, if a little circumspect - where are you having trouble?
    – Dale M
    Nov 18, 2016 at 1:29
  • Failure of due diligence, resulting in negligence and damage. It looks like an example of the tort of Occupier's Liability. Nov 19, 2016 at 13:09

1 Answer 1


I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to say that:

If you visit a place, and get hurt (e.g. by a chunk of ceiling falling on you or tripping on badly laid flooring), and it turns out that this is the fault of the contractor who built it, then the occupier will not be liable for your injuries as long as they acted reasonably to hire a good contractor and make sure the work was done right. This implies that if you can show that the occupier didn't do this then you can sue the occupier for damages, although the quoted text doesn't actually say so.

  • Well, it doesn't limit damages to getting hurt, also I would say that it's just things built by the contractor, and I don't see where it says that "if not, then you can sue". This says the occupier isn't vicariously liable, if he was cautious.
    – user6726
    Nov 18, 2016 at 23:10
  • The text says that reasonable care is a defense, which implies liability if reasonable care wasn't shown. However I agree that the quoted text doesn't actually say that. Nov 19, 2016 at 10:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .