2B - Occupiers Liability - 1957 Act Flashcards
Who does Occupier’s Liability 1957 relate to?
Visitors
What are the steps for proving Occupier’s Liability under the 1957 act?
- Who is an occupier
- Who is a visitor
- How does s.1(3)(a) define premises
- State of the premises
- The duty of care
- Variation in the standard of duty - children
- Variation in the standard of duty - experts
- Has the D discharged the duty
- Warnings
- Faulty work of an independent contractor
- Risk factors
- Defences
Step 1. Who is an occupier?
Harris v Birkenhead: The D was in occupation as they were effectively in control of the premises
Wheat v Lacon: HOL decided both the manager and employers could be occupiers so there could be more than one occupier of the premises
Step 2. Who is a visitor?
Someone with:
- express or implied permission, eg. invitees, licensees (implied - Lowery v Walker)
- statutory/legal rights of entry, eg. emergency services, utility workers
- permission due to contract, eg. cinema-goers with a ticket, guests at a hotel
Step 2. Who is a visitor: What did Scrutton LJ say in The Calgarth?
‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you did not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used’
Step 3. How does s.1(3)(a) define premises?
There is no statutory definition of premises except in s.1(3)(a) which refers to ‘premises’ as ‘fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle, and aircraft’
Haseldine v Daw: a lift is included as premises
Wheelar v Copas: a ladder is included as premises
Step 4. The ‘state of the premises’
The occupier’s duty under s.1(1) is in respect of damage caused by the state of the premises
ie. the land or buildings have an existing underlying problem
Ogwo v Taylor
Step 5. The duty of care under s.2(2)
the occupier must take reasonable care to see that visitors will be reasonably safe using the premises for the purposes of their visit.
^^^ the keep the visitor safe, NOT the premises. Visitors can be reasonably safe if they take reasonable care of their own safety
This doesn’t require the occupier to make the premises completely safe for the visitor - only to do what is reasonable
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway: occupier need only protect against foreseeable risks
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral: the state of the premises must pose a real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found
Step 6. Variation of the standard of care: what section is the duty in relation to children found
s.2(3)(a)
Step 6. Variation of the standard of care: What does s.2(3)(a) say?
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
- An occupier must guard against any form of allurement (glasgow corporation v Taylor)
- You can expect young chidlren to be supervised (Phipps v Rochester)
- the type of hamr must be foreseeable (Jolley v Sutton)
Step 7. Variation of the standard of care: what section is the duty in relation to experts found
s.2(3)(b)
Step 7. Variation of the standard of care: What does s.2(3)(b) say?
appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to their job
Roles v Nathan: The dangers were special risks ordinarily incident to their calling. The warnings issued were clear and the D’s would have been safe had they heeded the warnings.
Step 8. Has the occupier discharged the duty?
An occupier/defendant may seek to show that they have discharged their duty by arguing:
- warnings under s.2(4)(a)
- faulty execution of work by an independent contractor engaged by the occupiers under s.2(4)(b)
Step 9. Warnings under s.2(4)(a)
The warning must be enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, so the occupier should make sure the nature of the risk is clearly and specifically pointed out to those who come onto the land
Step 9. Warnings under s.(4)(a): What requirements must be met for a warning sign to be effective?
1) the warning must cover the danger that in fact arises
2) on the other hand, there is no duty to warn against obvious risks
Step 9. Warnings under s.(4)(a): Why was the warning in Rae v Mars Ltd not sufficient?
Where danger is extreme or unusual, it is not enough for there to be a warning; a barrier or additional notice should be placed
Step 10. Faulty work of an independent contractor under s.2(4)(b): What are the 3 conditions that must be satisifed?
- Was it reasonable to hire an independant contractor? (Haseline v Daw: reasonable to hire someone to repair a lift)
- Was the contractor competant? (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club: wasnt competant, stunt team had no insurance and used an unpaid ameteur who was burnt and broke him arm. Club hadn’t exercised reasonable care in choosing safe and competant contractors)
- Had they taken reasonable steps to check the work was properly done? (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings: child was injrued on icy steps. Easy to check if the wirk was done properly)
Step 11. Breach
What standard must the occupier reach in relation to Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks?
the ‘reasonable occupier’
Step 11. What risk factors may be considered when deciding if the occupier met the standard of care expectd by the reasonable occupier?
- Potential likelihood of harm (Haley v London Electricity Board)
- Potential seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough council)
- Cost of prevention (Bolten v Stone)
- Social benefit of the conduct (Watts v Herts CC)
Step 12. What defences are available to Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Contributory Negligence
Consent
Exclusion causes
Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Contributory negligence
Partial defence
Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 the claimants damages can be reduced according to the C’s responsibility for the damage suffered
Eg. Sayer v Harlow: the C’s damages were reduced by 25%
Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Consent
Complete defence
To succeed it must be shown thta the C fully understood the nature of the risk and accepted the risk
Eg. Geary v JD Wetherspoon: C decided to clide down the bannisters in a pub which had a stair case with an unprotected drop to the marble floor below. She fell 4m and suffered severe injuries. Her claim failed
Step 12. Defences for Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Exclusion causes
Only available to traders
Residential occupiers can restrict and exlude their liability for an injury caused to the visitor if they have provided awarning sign (s.2(1) OLA 1957).
However, under s.65 Consumer Rights Act 2015 a trader (eg a shop) cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury
Step 13. Remedies
The C’s remedy is damages or compensation. The occupier is liable for damage including death, personal injury and damage to property (s.1(3)(b))
