1957 Act Flashcards
To what matters does the act apply
an occupier of land owes his lawful visitors a common duty of care as regards to the dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them : S 1(1)
Case for defining who is an occupier
Wheat v Lacon
What was decided in Wheat v Lacon
The HoL held that, in the circumstances, the brewery had retained sufficient control over the upstairs part of the premises to be regarded as occupiers. Although they had granted Mr and Mrs R a licence to occupy the upstairs, they had retained the right to access that part themselves. This meant they could still exercise some control over the state of the premises. They also found that Mr and Mrs R were also occupiers and had sufficient control.
1) There can be more than one occupier of premises; and
2) Where the owner of the premise licenses others to occupy those premises, but retains the right to enter the premise, he or she remains an ‘occupier’ for the purposes of the Act. This is to be contrasted with the situation where the owner grants a tenancy conferring on others exclusive possession of the property.
Where is the definition of premises found
S 1(3)(a) control over nay fixed or moveable structure, including vessels, vechiles or aircraft
Who is owed a duty owed
S 1(2) anyone at common law who would be treated as a invitee or licnesee
When will someone be a visitor
enters with express or implied permission
Case where there was implied permission
Robinson v Hallet:n the facts, the son had committed the offence, because, although he was required to leave, he had not yet become a trespasser, as it had not yet gone past the reasonable amount of time it would take to leave. Therefore, the officer was acting lawfully as he had implied permission.
What can the occupier do tot prevent implied permission
put up a notice excluding lability
In which case was it found that the children were a lincesee because the company had knowledge of them on the land yet done nothing to abate
Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway Co of Ireland:
A railway company owned land which had a turntable on, which they knew children regularly played on. They knew there was a gap in the fence which children used to access the land. When playing on the land, a child’s leg was crushed as the turntable moved. Was the child a vistitor or a trespasser?
It was held the company was laible, because there was implied consent making the child a licensee. The implied consent arose due to the fact no reasonable steps were taken to stop children going onto the land, despite knowledge of them being there.
In which case could implied consent not be found because the company had taken steps to stop trespassers
• Edwards v Railway Executive:
A child climbed through a fence between recreational ground and D’s railway. D knew that children regularly climbed through the fence, and they regularly took steps to mend the fenece to prevent children getting through. The child who climbed through had been warned not to do so by his father and owners of the recreational ground. At first instance, the jury found that he was an implied licensee.
What did Lord Goddard say in regard to repeated trespassers
repeated trespass of itself confers no licence, beacause he does not cover his way is chevaux de frise or post a number of keepers t chase was intruders how is it to be said that he has licensed that which he cannot prevent
Are the courts generous in finding implied licenses
yes this is because of the low standard of care afforded to trespassers
In which case was a licence found despite attempts to warn off
Lowery v Walker
Can an occupier limit their permission
Yes
Which case was a situation given to how permission could be limited
the Calgath: when you invite someone into your house to use the stair case yo do not invite them to slide down the bannister
Which case was permission only extended to recreational use and did not extend to the reckless running across property
Haley v Plymouth CC
Which S deals with duty of care
S 2
What may a duty of care give arise to
a duty of care may give arise to the need to inspect the premises and take reasonable steps remedy any defects of danagers
What S indicated that warning given should allow to be reasonably safe
S 2(4)(a)
Case where college had not assumed responsibility
Risk v Rose Bradford college
Case where there was a duty of care although reduced due to contributory negligence
English Heritage v Taylor
Case where falling from a bridge was an obvious manager
Edwards v Sutton
Case in which risk assessment should have been conducted to fall into reasomabless requirement of S 2(2)
Hall v Holdback Estate
Case where was not reasonable to expect inspection
Ted stone v Borune
If there is a known risk of harm what must be done
appropriate precautions must be put in place where it can be shown that as a matter of causation that a risk assessment towuld have changed the outcome
Where would a risk assessment not have changed the outcome
Risk v Rose Burford college
Case where a risk assessment would have changed the outcome
Corbett v Cumbria Racing Club
Case where risk assessment was ignored
Wilson v Haden
Which S stated that particular considerations will be taken for children
S 2(3)(a)
Case where precautions had to be put in place for children
Moloney v Lambeth: fell through railings
Case where children would eb allured
Glasgow Corp v Taylor
Case where held not liable as entitled to assume prudent parents would accompany a child of such a young age
Phipps v Rochester Corp
Case where HoL ruled that it ws foreseeable that child would medley with the boat at risk of physical injury
Jolly v Sutton
Section that applies to experts
S 2(3)(b)
What can be expected of an expert
that a skilled visitor employed to undertake work will take approriate precautions again risks associated with their job
Case where no lability found as not take precautions against risk
Christmas v General cleaning:
Another case where not taken precautions against risk- sweeps
Roles v Nathan
Case indicates that will be owed a duty of care if accident despite taking all reasonable care
Ogwo v Taylor
What section states that warning must be give
S2(4)(a)
What must warning allow
to be reasonably safe
What did Denning say about reasonably safe
Horton’s case and the footbridges
Case where warning had been given but did not allow to be reasonably safe
Lough v Intruders Detention, Surveillance and Fire Security
Is there a duty to warn agasint obvious risks
no- Thomlison v Congleton
Which S covers independent contracts
S 2(4) (b)
When will an occupier not be liable for independent contracts
if occupier acted reasonably in all the circumstances in entrusting the work to the indepenent contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy tehsmeve that the work was carried out properly and the contractor was competentq
Which case set out the test when will be liable
1) reasonable to employ
2) care was taken in selection
3) the riskier the task the greater the care needed
Haseldine v Daw
Case where reasonable care not taken therefore liable for independent contractor
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
Case indicates there is not duty to check insurance
Gillian v W hertfordshire Hospital Trust
