## Facts

- The defendant occupied a sugar-refining premises containing a vertical floor-level opening (a shaft) used to raise and lower sugar between floors.
- The shaft was left open and unfenced when in use for business operations; when not in use, it was sometimes left open, including for ventilation.
- The plaintiff, a journeyman gas-fitter employed by the supplier of a gas-regulator installed at the premises, entered to inspect and test the apparatus for the defendant’s potential economic benefit (reduced gas consumption).
- While performing that work on an upper floor, the plaintiff fell through the open, unfenced shaft and suffered serious injury.
- Evidence supported that, when the shaft was not in use, it could have been fenced (e.g., with a rail) without harming the defendant’s business operations.

## Issues

1. Whether a premises occupier owes a duty of reasonable care to a person lawfully present by express or implied invitation for a purpose connected with the occupier’s business.
2. Whether leaving an unfenced floor opening when not operationally necessary constitutes a breach of that duty as an “unusual danger” to such an entrant.

## Decision

- The Court of Common Pleas upheld the plaintiff’s right to recover.
- The plaintiff was on the premises as an invitee (a business visitor), not as a mere licensee or volunteer.
- The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury from an unusual danger the defendant knew or ought to have known.
- Leaving the shaft open and unfenced when it was not necessary for business use breached that duty, supporting liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.

## Legal Principles

- An occupier who invites (expressly or impliedly) a person onto premises for a purpose in which the occupier has an interest must take reasonable care to protect that person from unusual dangers the occupier knows or should know.
- The duty is not strict liability and does not require making the premises absolutely safe; it requires guarding against “traps” or concealed/unexpected dangers for invitees.
- As to obvious dangers, an invitee is generally expected to protect himself; the occupier’s obligation centers on precautions or warnings for concealed or unusual hazards reasonably foreseeable to the occupier.

## Conclusion

The court held the occupier liable because the plaintiff entered as a business invitee and was injured by an unusual, foreseeable danger—an unfenced floor-level shaft that could have been guarded without disrupting operations—triggering a duty of reasonable care breached by the defendant.


Indermaur v. Dames, L.R. 1 C.P. 274 (C.P. 1866)