2B - Occupiers Liability - Case List Flashcards
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
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
Lowery v Walker
Whilst the C didnt have express permission, a licence was implied through repeated trespass
Haseldine v Daw
A lift is included in premises
Wheeler v Copas
A ladder is included in premises
Ogwo v Taylor
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.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaways
Standard of care expected is the same as ordinary negligence so the occupier need only protect against foreseeable risks
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
State of premises must pose a real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
An occupier must guard against any form of allurement
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
An occupier can expect a young child to be supervised
Jolley v Sutton
The type of harm or injury must be foreseeable
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.
Rae v Mars Ltd
Where danger is extreme or unusual, it is not enough for there to be a warning; a barrier or additional notice should be placed
Darby v National Trust
The risk to swimmers in the pond was perfectly obvious. There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
Haseldine v Daw and Son Ltd
It was reasonable to hire an independent contractor to repair a lift
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
Did the C exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors?
Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
Did the D take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly and the damage should have been obvious to them
British Railways Board v Herrington
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
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
If a person opted to climb the external fire escape improperly, thus creating the danger themselves, the health trust could not be liable
Baldacchino v West Wittering
Diving into shallow water was an obvious danger
Rhind v Astbury Water Park
Occupier could not know of the dangerous objects, therefore, no duty was owed
Swain v Natui Ram Puri
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
Scott v Associated British Ports
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
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
Wouldnt expect a trespasser would be there or jump into the harbour at that time of day and year
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
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
Westwood v Post Office
A notice or sign can be enough to discharge a duty
Platt v Liverpool CC
Court said ‘the occupier should not have to guard against an irresponsible and determined minority’
