If you invite someone into your home or someone trespasses into your house or your legal tenant to your property gets injured on the premises, are you liable to them?
The law that applies in this area is often referred to as “Occupier’s Liability”. We unpack in this article, the extent of your liability as an owner or someone who has control over the premises and the power to say who gets to enter or exit the premises.
The Law
In Singapore, the Court of Appeal has made it clear in See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others [2013] 3 SLR 284 (“Toh”) that the law does not distinguish between an invitee, licensee or trespasser, as opposed to owing invitees the highest duty, followed by licensees and then trespassers. Instead, the framework for liability under negligence in tort law which was laid down in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 applies. This would be a more coherent rout to resolving many of the existing classificatory problems in the law on occupier’s liability. The formalistic, confusing and complex distinctions between invitees, licensees and trespassers would simply be rendered otiose in the light of a general overarching principle.
This means that the Court would simply decide the matter based on factual and legal proximity between the occupier and the party who had suffered injury and policy considerations whether they were against or for imposing a duty of care.
In Toh, the Court was of the view that there was undoubtedly physical proximity between an occupier and an entrant because the entrant was physically situated on the occupier’s property.
Lawful entrants
Insofar as lawful entrants were concerned, circumstantial proximity is present because the occupier had consented to the lawful entrant’s presence on an occupier’s premises. Therefore, the vast majority of occupiers who have control of the property which they occupy and/or the activities carried out there, owe a prima facie duty of care to lawful entrants.
However, the Court also caveated that occupiers were not to be viewed as insurers for the safety of their property and their duty was merely to exercise reasonable care.
Unlawful entrants
What about trespassers who do not have any legal right or justification to be on an occupier’s premises?
The Court in Toh was of the view that it was impossible to hold that occupiers owe a blanket duty of care to all trespassers. Whether or not a prima facie duty of care arose would depend on all the circumstances of the case. Culpability on the part of the entrant is key.
At the end of the day, the objective of the tort of negligence is to render interpersonal justice and to remedy wrongs. So, the Court would have due regard to policy considerations against imposing a duty of care.
Whether you have suffered injury on a property or are the occupier and owner of a property where an accident had happened, our firm can assist you.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.
