A person who decommissions equipment but leaves a latent danger (such as a live electrical connection) does not owe a duty of care to a person who has full knowledge of the danger and of the need to engage a specialist to address it. The scope of the duty is shaped by the class of persons foreseeably at risk, which does not include those with actual knowledge of the specific risk. However, a property owner who is informed of a latent danger on premises where work is being performed owes a duty to arrange for the danger to be eliminated, and the worker's knowledge of the danger goes to contributory negligence rather than negating the duty. Where the plaintiff's voluntary act with knowledge of the risk intervenes, the scope of liability under s 5D(1)(b) may not extend to the defendant whose breach was temporally remote and whose duty was merely to provide information that the plaintiff already possessed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.