Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > 6. Occupiers' Liability > Flashcards

6. Occupiers' Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Bailey v Armes

A

No liability where Ds not held to be occupiers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Collier v Anglian Water Authority

A

Multiple occupiers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

AMF International v Magnet Bowling

A

Independent contractors can be occupiers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

OLA 1957, s 3(1)

A

Broad definition of premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

The Calgarth

A

Limitation by area possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Wheat v Lacon

A

Definition of occupier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Pearson v Coleman Bros

A

Child accidentally found herself in animal enclosure - no signs indicating this was private area, so not trespasser

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Stone v Taffe

A

Limitation by time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Smith and Jones

A

Limitation by purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Lowery v Walker

A

Implied permit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Harvey v Plymouth CC

A

Implied licence doesn’t extend beyond scope of activities for which licence expressly/impliedly given

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(6)

A

Some persons such as police officers with warrant are visitors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

OLA 1957, s 5(1)

A

If person enters under terms of contract with occupier, it is implied term that entrant is owed common duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(1)

A

Same ‘common’ duty of care owed to all visitors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(2)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Haley v London Electricity Board

A

Blind should be considered as potential users of the highway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Ward v Tesco Stores

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cunningham v Reading Football Club

A

Liability imposed on D for not removing pieces of concrete from stands – reasonably foreseeable be for be through by hooligans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Laverton v Kiabasha

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(3)(a)

A

Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

A

Liability imposed after child of 7 died eating poisonous berries from D’s premises

22
Q

Philips v Rochester Corporation

A

No liability after boy of 5 without parental supervision falls into trench on building site

23
Q

Perry v Butlins Holiday World

A

Liability imposed after child suffers injury in area typically used by children’s entertainers

24
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(3)(b)

A

Occupier does not have to take care to protect someone against risks normally incidental to his job

25
Q

Roles v Nathan

A

No liability towards chimney sweeps who fail to extinguish boiler

Occupier had also warned chimney sweeps of danger

26
Q

Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant

A

Firemen injured as a result of risks created by occupiers’ negligence - liability imposed

27
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(4)(a)

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’

28
Q

Staples v West Dorset District Council

A

P slipped on sea wall which was covered in algae and therefore obviously slippery – no liability

29
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(1)

A

Preserves common law right that occupier can extend, restricted, modify or exclude liability

30
Q

OLA 1957, s 3

A

Occupy cannot, by contract, exclude or restrict the common duty of care which he owes to a third party

31
Q

UCTA 1977

A

Restricts exclusion clauses/notices which purport to exclude or limit liability for negligence

32
Q

British Railway Board v Herrington

A

Principle of ‘common humanity’ - minimum legal standard of care which can never be excluded

33
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(4)(b)

A

When employing contractor, occupier must act reasonably in
Hiring
Selecting
Supervising

34
Q

Haseldine v Daw

A

Work carried out by contractors technical in nature - D not liable

35
Q

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

A

Work carried out by cleaner not technical in nature - D liable

36
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(5)

A

Volenti

37
Q

White v Blackmore

A

P spectator at car rally held not to consent to risk of death after barrier offers inadequate protection, even though he had seen warning

38
Q

OLA 1957, s 2(3)

A

Contrib - visitor expected to take ordinary degree of care

39
Q

Robert Addie v Dumbreck

A

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’

40
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(3)

A

(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?

41
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(4)

A

If these conditions are satisfied, occupy his duty to take reasonable care that entrant does not suffer injury

42
Q

Swain v Natui Ram Puri

A

No liability in relation to young boys climbing on roof where there was no evidence of previous trespassing and the precautions taken with sufficient

43
Q

Young v Kent County Council

A

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

44
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(5)

A

Duty maybe satisfied by given sufficient warning of danger

45
Q

Revill v Newbery

A

D liable for shooting burglar with shotgun, even though trespasser

Contrib - P had his damages reduced by two thirds because of his illegal activity

46
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton BC

A

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

47
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(9)

A

Occupier only liable for physical injury

48
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(8)

A

Property damage is specifically not covered

49
Q

OLA 1984, s 1(6)

A

Both contrib and volenti are available

50
Q

Titchner v BRB

A

Objective rather than subjective test was used with regard to P accepting risk

Tort (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions