Defective Premises Act 1972 - Essay Example

The electrocution was caused by faulty wiring. Edward, also a guest at the party, thought it would be amusing to dance on the garage roof. As he could not reach the roof unaided, he decided to use a radiator under the window as a step. For some time, Alice had known that the radiator was loose. The radiator collapsed under Edward’s weight and he broke his leg in the fall.

Question
Advise Alice and Bert, who are both, being threatened with legal claims by Delia and Edward.
A Glance at the Circumstance

Based on the given situation, one could say that both, Bert (the landlord) and Alice (the tenant) had committed mistakes resulting in the injuries suffered by Delia and Edward. About Bert, he was the one who hired Charlie’s Electrics which presumably did not fix well the broken light switch in Alice’s kitchen as Delia was electrocuted due to faulty wiring. Alice on the other hand, is somehow guilty of what happened to Edward. Edward suffered a broken leg after he tried to go to the garage roof using the radiator under a window which Alice knew to be loose. If only Alice reported the loose radiator to Bert for him to fix it, the incident could have been avoided. As far as the circumstance is concerned, it seems that Bert and Alice have failed to perform their respective obligations as the owner and tenant of the place.

Analysis
According to Markesinis and Deakin (1999, p.69), the element of duty is associated with the following query: “Does the law recognize liability in the cited situation?” The essence of this question is related to the duty attached to a landlord as far as the given situation is concerned. Under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord is obliged to maintain or repair the premises under tenancy. He or she owes a duty to take reasonable care in all circumstances to all persons who can be affected by the defects of the premises (Defective Premises Act 1972). This is to say then that Bert, as the owner of the first floor flat which Alice rented, must make sure that nothing in the premises is defective that might cause any harm to any tenants. To take reasonable care would mean that Bert should have inspected Alice’s area to check if there was something defective and to fix it immediately. Since Bert did not know about the loose radiator, it can be presumed that he did not exercise reasonable care to maintain the place. To note, the tenant doesn't have to notify “the landlord of the want of repair” (Clements & Fairest, 1996, p.85).
Nonetheless, Bert could not be made liable for Edward’s injury because the ultimate fault is attached to Alice. As the occupier of the place, Alice has the responsibility to take care of the premises.

Taking care of the premises would mean that she should not do anything that could damage the property and if she does, she will be held liable for it. Section 1 of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 states that the occupier of a certain premises is obliged to take good care of the people who are in his or her premises especially if he or she knows of the possible danger his or her area might have. He or she has reasonable ground to believe that a person may go to the vicinity of the danger and that the corresponding risk necessitates some form of protection from the occupier. To note, Alice had known of the fact that the radiator was loose even before she conducted the party. Presumably, she had entertained the idea that one of the guests would use the loose radiator as she allowed them to get onto the garage roof which could only be reached through the high window of her toilet. In such a case, it is a contention that she is wholly liable for what happened to Edward.

About Delia’s case, it is clear that Charlie’s Electrics was at fault. It did not fix the broken light switch that resulted in what had happened to Delia. Nonetheless, as Bert and Alice are the only parties to the tenancy agreement, Delia could only sue any of them for damages. This rule is emphasized in the case of Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428 where the wife of a tenant was not allowed by the House of Lords to sue the landlord based on negligence as the tenancy agreement only involved the husband and the landlord (cited in Harpwood, 2008, p.224). Notably, Alice is already out of the liability issue since before the incident transpired, she had asked Bert to fix the broken switch. Even though Bert is not the ultimate cause of the incident, he is the one to be made liable for damages since he is the owner of the place. It is up to him to ask for indemnification from Charlie’s Electrics. Read More