Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:32:19.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Occupiers Liability in Tort

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Moshe Shalgi
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legislation
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 240 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 England—Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957; Scotland—Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960; New-Zealand—Occupiers' Liability Act, 1962.

2 For extensive critical review of the doctrine, see Barak, A., “Liability of Occupier of Land in Torts” (Hebrew), Studies in Law in Memory of Abraham Rosenthal (1964), 104Google Scholar, and bibliography there.

3 International Lawyers' Convention in Israel, 1959 (1959), p. 59.

4 (1944) P.G., Suppl. 1, p. 129.

5 The London Society for Promoting Chrisianity among the Jews v. Orr (1947) A.L.R. 364.

6 The Laws of Palestine (Drayton) vol. III, (English) 2569, 2580.

7 Ibid., 368.

8 See Denning, , The Changing Law (1953) p. 69.Google Scholar

9 Barak, op. cit., 158–9.

10 Rotenstreich v. A.G. (1953) 7 P.D. 58; A.G. v. Berkovitz (1957) 11 P.D. 206. Tracing the strange process of adoption is interesting in itself. In Rotenstreich the triple distinction was, correctly, referred to and applied in respect of the degree of negligence necessary for conviction under sec. 218 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936 (causing death through negligence). Zalach v. Sireni (1956) 10 P.D. 1317, relying on Rotenstreich, unwarrantedly applied it to civil liability. In Berkovitz—an appeal against judgment of a District Court which analysed sec. 50 (2) and rejected the doctrine in favour of the general principle of negligence—the application of this doctrine was finally asserted.

11 (1962) 16 P.D. 1933, 1939.

12 Breslinger v. Rubinstein (1965) (III) 18 P.D. 215. See also Farkash v. Uni and Rashut Ha'Pituach v. Koen (1964) 17 P.D. 1098.

13 Particularly Barak's op. cit., p. 1, n. 2.

14 Farkash v. Uni, ubi supra 1939.

15 See especially Barak, A., “Legislative Regulation of the Liability of the Occupier of Land”, (1970) 2 Mishpatim 129, 143 ff.Google Scholar, 150 and bibliography cited there.

16 This is also the answer to a further objection (ibid., 149) that sec. 37 requires no connection between the offensive behaviour of the trespasser and the causation of the injury.

17 Ibid., 155, 158.

18 See ibid., 151.