Odger's English Common Law

adjoining land. 1
NEGLIGENCE. 487
If, however, any passenger on the railway had been
injured through an accident caused by the presence of the sheep upon the
company's line, he would have been entitled to recover damages ; for
although the statutory duty to fence is an obligation not as to passengers,
but with regard to the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands, yet there
is also a duty imposed by common law on a railway company to take every
reasonable care to prevent danger to their passengers from animals coming
on to the line. 2
The duty must clearly exist; it must uot be inferred
from other circumstances, where there was no intention on
the part of the defendant to take upon himself such a duty.
Thus a landowner who dedicates a highway to the use of the public-
is under no duty to keep it in repair. So, too, land may be dedicated to-
the public as a highway, without any liability attaching for any risk or-
inconvenience to the public arising from its existing condition. 3
But a mere licence to lodgers to use the roof of a house as a drying-plac*
for linen does not impose any duty upon the landlord to repair the railing
round the roof. 4 Nor is there any duty on the part of the occupier of
premises to render them secure for persons using them without invitation
for their own gratification. 5 But where the owner of a building lets it as
chambers or offices to different tenants, but retains the staircase in his
possession, he*is under a duty towards persons using the staircase, when
on business with the tenants, to keep it in a reasonably safe condition. 6
Again, " one who chooses to become a guest cannot complain of the
insufficiency of the accommodation afforded him " by his host, so long as
there is nothing in the nature of a trap or concealed danger. 7 But where
a barber, in shaving the plaintiff, negligently used razors and other
appliances in a dirty and insanitary condition and the plaintiff contracted
ringworm in consequence, he recovered damages. 8
(ii.) Next, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has
been guilty of negligence—that he either wholly omitted to
perform his duty or that he was negligent in his performance
of it. What amounts to negligence must depend on the
1 Ricketts v. The East and West India Docks, $c, Ry. Co. (1852), 12 C. B. 160 ;
Sharrod v. L. $ N. W. Ry. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 580. As to obligation to maintain
gates at level crossing, see Charman v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 524.
2 Buxton v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 519.
3 Fisher v. Prowse (1862), 2 B. & S. 770 ; Morant v. Chamberlin (1861), 6
H. & N. 541 ; Brachley v. Midland Ry. Co. (1916), 85 L. J. K. B. 1596.
' Ivay v. Hedges (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 80 ; Batchelor v. Fortescue (1883), 11
Q. B. D. 474.
« Jewson v. Gatti (1885), 1 C. & E. 564.
6 See Haggett v. Miers, [1908] 2 K. B. 278 ; Ching v. Surrey C. C, [1910] 1 K. B.
736 ; Lucy v. Bawden, [1914] 2 K. B. 318.
' Per Williams. J., in Corby v. Bill (1 858), 4 C. B. N. S. at p. 565 ; and see Kimber v.
Gas Light and Coke Co., [1918] 1 K. B. 439.
• Hales v. Kerr, [1908] 2 K. B. 601.