Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber
Judgment Date: 6 February 1867
Where Reported: (1866-67) L.R. 2 C.P. 311; [1867] 2 WLUK 15
Legal Issue in Indermaur v Dames
The legal issue in Indermaur v Dames revolved around the duty of care owed by a property owner to a person on their premises for a lawful purpose.
Indermaur v Dames questioned whether the defendant, owning a sugar refinery with an unfenced shaft, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, a gasfitter’s employee, who was injured on the premises.
The primary legal issue in Indermaur v Dames was whether the plaintiff, being on the premises for a legitimate contractual purpose, was entitled to a duty of care from the defendant, or if he was merely a volunteer with no such entitlement​​.
Material Facts in Indermaur v Dames
The plaintiff, a journeyman gasfitter employed by Duckham, was sent to the defendant’s sugar refinery to ensure the proper functioning of gas apparatus that Duckham had installed. The refinery had an unfenced shaft in its upper storey, which was typical for such businesses.
After completing the work, Duckham scheduled a follow-up visit to check the apparatus, and the plaintiff, following Duckham’s directions, went to the refinery for this purpose.
While on the defendant’s premises to fulfil this contractual obligation, the plaintiff fell through the unfenced shaft and sustained injuries.
The defendant appealed against a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, which had rejected a motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and enter a verdict for the defendant or a nonsuit​​.
Judgment in Indermaur v Dames
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court below, holding that the plaintiff was not a mere volunteer and was entitled to recover damages from the defendant.
The Court reasoned that the plaintiff was on the defendant’s premises for a lawful purpose, fulfilling a contract in which both he and the defendant had an interest.
This was not a case of bare permission but one where the plaintiff, as a person engaged in completing the work pursuant to a contractual obligation, was owed a duty of care by the defendant.
The Court held in Indermaur v Dames that the duty to enable the workman to perform the work safely extended to the testing phase of the work and applied to any employee sent by the contractor in place of the master-workman​​.
Reason for the Decision in Indermaur v Dames
The Court’s decision was grounded in the principle that an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to individuals on their property for lawful purposes, particularly when fulfilling a contract.
This duty arises from the relationship between the parties and the nature of the activity being undertaken on the premises.
The plaintiff’s presence at the refinery was not incidental but directly connected to a contract to which both parties were indirectly linked.
The Court recognised that the plaintiff, being there to test work completed as part of a contractual obligation, was in a different position from a mere licensee or volunteer.
The plaintiff’s role was akin to that of a workman completing a task that was part of the contractual service. This established a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the Court considered the nature of the premises – a sugar refinery with inherent risks due to its design, including the unfenced shaft. It was noted that while the usual workers might be aware of such dangers, visitors or contractors like the plaintiff might not be.
Therefore, the defendant had an obligation to either make the premises safe for such visitors or to adequately warn them of the risks involved.
The Court also addressed the argument that the plaintiff contributed to the accident through his negligence. While acknowledging this possibility, the Court emphasised that it was a matter for the jury to decide.
The presence of evidence that the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions was sufficient for the case to be considered by the jury, rather than being dismissed outright by a nonsuit.
In summary, the Court’s decision in Indermaur v Dames was based on the recognition of a duty of care in situations where individuals are present on premises for purposes connected to a contract.
This duty required the occupier to ensure the safety of such individuals or to adequately warn them of any existing dangers​​.
Conclusion
Indermaur v Dames is a significant case in the development of negligence law, particularly regarding the duty of care owed by property owners to individuals on their premises for contractual purposes.
The decision established that individuals who are on premises for lawful business, particularly to fulfil a contract, are owed a duty of care by the property owner.
This duty encompasses ensuring the safety of the premises or providing adequate warning about any potential dangers.
Indermaur v Dames underlines the broader responsibilities of property owners in maintaining a safe environment, not only for their employees but also for external contractors and visitors engaged in work-related activities​​.
