6. Occupiers' Liability Flashcards
Bailey v Armes
No liability where Ds not held to be occupiers
Collier v Anglian Water Authority
Multiple occupiers
AMF International v Magnet Bowling
Independent contractors can be occupiers
OLA 1957, s 3(1)
Broad definition of premises
The Calgarth
Limitation by area possible
Wheat v Lacon
Definition of occupier
Pearson v Coleman Bros
Child accidentally found herself in animal enclosure - no signs indicating this was private area, so not trespasser
Stone v Taffe
Limitation by time
R v Smith and Jones
Limitation by purpose
Lowery v Walker
Implied permit
Harvey v Plymouth CC
Implied licence doesn’t extend beyond scope of activities for which licence expressly/impliedly given
OLA 1957, s 2(6)
Some persons such as police officers with warrant are visitors
OLA 1957, s 5(1)
If person enters under terms of contract with occupier, it is implied term that entrant is owed common duty of care
OLA 1957, s 2(1)
Same ‘common’ duty of care owed to all visitors
OLA 1957, s 2(2)
Common duty is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances; to see that visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which she is invited/permitted
Haley v London Electricity Board
Blind should be considered as potential users of the highway
Ward v Tesco Stores
D liable on after slips on yoghurt which had been spilled on the floor – assumption of such accidents wouldn’t happen if Ds clean floor regularly and Ds had provided no evidence that they had
Cunningham v Reading Football Club
Liability imposed on D for not removing pieces of concrete from stands – reasonably foreseeable be for be through by hooligans
Laverton v Kiabasha
C slips on the floor went from walk in rain in takeaway shop after night out – D not liable since had taken reasonable precautions: installed floor-resistant tiles mopped floor regularly, tho not when shop full
OLA 1957, s 2(3)(a)
Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
Liability imposed after child of 7 died eating poisonous berries from D’s premises
Philips v Rochester Corporation
No liability after boy of 5 without parental supervision falls into trench on building site
Perry v Butlins Holiday World
Liability imposed after child suffers injury in area typically used by children’s entertainers
OLA 1957, s 2(3)(b)
Occupier does not have to take care to protect someone against risks normally incidental to his job
Roles v Nathan
No liability towards chimney sweeps who fail to extinguish boiler
Occupier had also warned chimney sweeps of danger
Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant
Firemen injured as a result of risks created by occupiers’ negligence - liability imposed
OLA 1957, s 2(4)(a)
Warning will only satisfy common duty of care ‘if in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’
Staples v West Dorset District Council
P slipped on sea wall which was covered in algae and therefore obviously slippery – no liability
OLA 1957, s 2(1)
Preserves common law right that occupier can extend, restricted, modify or exclude liability
OLA 1957, s 3
Occupy cannot, by contract, exclude or restrict the common duty of care which he owes to a third party
UCTA 1977
Restricts exclusion clauses/notices which purport to exclude or limit liability for negligence
British Railway Board v Herrington
Principle of ‘common humanity’ - minimum legal standard of care which can never be excluded
OLA 1957, s 2(4)(b)
When employing contractor, occupier must act reasonably in
Hiring
Selecting
Supervising
Haseldine v Daw
Work carried out by contractors technical in nature - D not liable
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Work carried out by cleaner not technical in nature - D liable
OLA 1957, s 2(5)
Volenti
White v Blackmore
P spectator at car rally held not to consent to risk of death after barrier offers inadequate protection, even though he had seen warning
OLA 1957, s 2(3)
Contrib - visitor expected to take ordinary degree of care
Robert Addie v Dumbreck
Trespasser is ‘he he goes onto land without indication of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known, is practically objected to’
OLA 1984, s 1(3)
(a) is occupier aware of danger, or does he have reasonable grounds to believe it exists?
(b) does he know, or have reasonable grounds to believe, that trespasser is in vicinity danger?
(c) is the risk one which it is reasonable for occupier to protect trespasser from?
OLA 1984, s 1(4)
If these conditions are satisfied, occupy his duty to take reasonable care that entrant does not suffer injury
Swain v Natui Ram Puri
No liability in relation to young boys climbing on roof where there was no evidence of previous trespassing and the precautions taken with sufficient
Young v Kent County Council
D Council found liable for C’s injury where children climbing on the school roof was a known risk which they had failed to protect against, despite there being a low cost solution
OLA 1984, s 1(5)
Duty maybe satisfied by given sufficient warning of danger
Revill v Newbery
D liable for shooting burglar with shotgun, even though trespasser
Contrib - P had his damages reduced by two thirds because of his illegal activity
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
No liability for C’s injury sustained when diving in shallow lake, where D had placed warning notices
Volenti - appears to indicate less strict approach, similar to the test for visitors
OLA 1984, s 1(9)
Occupier only liable for physical injury
OLA 1984, s 1(8)
Property damage is specifically not covered
OLA 1984, s 1(6)
Both contrib and volenti are available
Titchner v BRB
Objective rather than subjective test was used with regard to P accepting risk
