Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-1943
..... far as material) of the premises permits a third party to make of the premises. thus, the occupier of a theatre may permit an independent company to give performances, or the person holding a fair may grant concessions to others to conduct side shows or subsidiary entertainments, which may, in fact ..... opinion, neither hypothesis could impose liability on the appellants. as to negligence, the two men were not their servants. they were not responsible for their acts. that the men should be negligent in so simple an operation was not likely to happen. it was a mere possibility, not a reasonable probability. ..... to be injured, if the place in which they were was rendered dangerous to them by mrs alexander's act in consenting to the urn being carried through the place. the question thus is whether mrs alexander knew or ought to have known that what ..... problem which was presented recently in bourhill v. young, which was whether the person injured came within the limits of foreseeable harm from the dangerous acts complained of. here the children were on the appellants' premises in full view of mrs alexander, the appellants' responsible servant, and were plainly liable ..... must take precautions which are not required of persons engaged in the ordinary routine of daily life. it is, no doubt, true that in every act which an individual performs there is present a potentiality of injury to others. all things are possible, and, indeed, it has become proverbial that the .....Tag this Judgment!