2B - Occupiers Liability - Case List

Question 1

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

Answer 1

The D was in occupation as they were effectively in control of the premises

Question 2

Wheat v Lacon

Answer 2

HOL decided both the manager and employers could be occupiers so there could be more than one occupier of the premises

Question 3

Lowery v Walker

Answer 3

Whilst the C didnt have express permission, a licence was implied through repeated trespass

Question 4

Haseldine v Daw

Answer 4

A lift is included in premises

Question 5

Wheeler v Copas

Answer 5

A ladder is included in premises

Question 6

Ogwo v Taylor

Answer 6

There was no special principle that prevented firemen from claiming damages for injuries that they incurred whilst fighting a fire that had been negligently started.

Question 7

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaways

Answer 7

Standard of care expected is the same as ordinary negligence so the occupier need only protect against foreseeable risks

Question 8

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Answer 8

State of premises must pose a real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found

Question 9

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 9

An occupier must guard against any form of allurement

Question 10

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Answer 10

An occupier can expect a young child to be supervised

Question 11

Jolley v Sutton

Answer 11

The type of harm or injury must be foreseeable

Question 12

Roles v Nathan

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Rae v Mars Ltd

Answer 13

Where danger is extreme or unusual, it is not enough for there to be a warning; a barrier or additional notice should be placed

Question 14

Darby v National Trust

Answer 14

The risk to swimmers in the pond was perfectly obvious. There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk.

Question 15

Haseldine v Daw and Son Ltd

Answer 15

It was reasonable to hire an independent contractor to repair a lift

Question 16

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Answer 16

Did the C exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors?

Question 17

Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Answer 17

Did the D take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly and the damage should have been obvious to them

Question 18

British Railways Board v Herrington

Answer 18

Established the ‘common duty of humanity. Takes into account the increasing number of dangerous premises and the issues with making children, in particular, aware of the danger

Question 19

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

Answer 19

If a person opted to climb the external fire escape improperly, thus creating the danger themselves, the health trust could not be liable

Question 20

Baldacchino v West Wittering

Answer 20

Diving into shallow water was an obvious danger

Question 21

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Answer 21

Occupier could not know of the dangerous objects, therefore, no duty was owed

Question 22

Swain v Natui Ram Puri

Answer 22

The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other [trespasser] is in the vicinity of the danger. The factory was surrounded by substantial fences and there was no evidence of previous trespassers

Question 23

Scott v Associated British Ports

Answer 23

There has previously been an incident of ‘train surfing’ leading to the 15-year-old participant losing a leg. Years later a 13-year-old boy attempted to jump onto a slow-moving train and lost an arm and a leg
The trial judge found facts that the boys would not have been deterred by the provision of a fence and that they were fully aware of the risks they were taking
- The Court of Appeal agreed: since the absence of a fence was not the cause of the claimant’s injuries, their claim was bound to fail

Question 24

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Answer 24

Wouldnt expect a trespasser would be there or jump into the harbour at that time of day and year

Question 25

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 25

No risk arose from the state of the premises as required under s.1(1)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The risk arose from the claimant’s own action. He was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity that had an inherent risk

Question 26

Westwood v Post Office

Answer 26

A notice or sign can be enough to discharge a duty

Question 27

Platt v Liverpool CC

Answer 27

Court said ‘the occupier should not have to guard against an irresponsible and determined minority’