Case: Heaven v Pender (1883). ● Facts of the case: The defendant is the owner of a dry dock who entered into a contract with a shipowner in order to supply a stage supported by ropes that would be ung over the side of a ship while it was in the dock. Painters employed by an independent contractor used the stage to paint the ship. While painting, one of the ropes gave way and one of the painters was injured. The ropes had been scorched, before they were supplied by the defendant, who had failed to give reasonably caref ul attention to their condition. The injured painter sought to sue the defendant. However, he had no contract with the owner, so he sued in tort. Issue: Did the defendant owe the injured painter a duty of care? Held: (Brett MR – minority): “Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary skill and avoid such danger”. Tort law should assume a broad view of this area. If any person with ordinary sense realises that if they did not exercise proper care and skill, damage could be occasioned to another or another‟s property from their actions, they should be held liable. Brett MR was part of the minority. The majority gave a narrower interpretation: liability can only be found in this area of tort when there is an action between owners/occupiers of a premises and licensees. The painter was not a licensee, so he could not be successf ul in tort – Defendant successf ul.