Act 1957 Flashcards
Test
1) Is D an occupier?
2) Is C a visitor?
3) Has D breached his duty?
if yes D is liable under 1957 Act
Areas under the 1957 Act
Adult Visitors
Children
Traders
Independent Contractor
s.2(1)
A lawful visitor is owed a duty of care
s.2(2)
The occupier must keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose for which he/she is invited to be there.
Lawful Visitors - Adult
Invitees - those with express permission
Licensees - permission for a particular reason
Contractual permission - Ticket for an event
Statutory permission - There by law
Laverton V Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
D mop the floor when it had been raining and C enter the shop, slipped and broke her ankle.
Held: owner taken reasonable care and were not liable.
Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme AO3
P - Visitor can be considered reasonably safe.
DP - They had slip resistant titles fitted and has mop the floor to make the premise safe.
WDP- However some may argue that is not completely safe as the owner could added a wet floor sign to encourage a greater standard of care.
Occupiers’ Liability to Children
s.2(3)
Owe a additional special duty to child visitors
‘Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age’
Guard against allurement
Jolley V London Borough of Sutton
Children played in an abandoned boat. Boat fell on one of them causing serious injury.
Held: Council were liable as it was foreseeable that children would play in an abandoned boat. Had a duty to ensure safety.
London Borough of Sutton Ao3
P- Allurement was decided before the Act to effectively protect children. This means Occupier must provide greater protection.
DP- This differs from case to case makes it difficult for lawyers to advise their client, limiting access to justice.
WDP - Test favours the claimant as the language being non specific about the phrase ‘child of that age’. Claim is more likely to succeed.
Occupier Liability to those carrying out trade or calling
s.2(3)(b)
Occupier owe tradesman a common duty of care.
an occupier will not be liable where tradesman fail to guard against risks which they should know about or would be expected to know about.
Roles V Nathan
Chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide knowing the danger.
Held: Not liable as chimney sweeps should be aware of the danger of carbon monoxide.
Roles V Nathan A03
P - Allows occupier to escape liability if the injury is related to the work.
DP - This means there is a lack of protection for the claimant which may seem unfair and go against public policy.
WDP - However, if the injury is not related to work and is by something different, the occupier still owe a duty of care.
Occupiers’ Liability for the Tort of Independent Contractor
s.2(4)
if visitor is injured by workman’s negligent work, the occupier may have a defence and be able to pass the claim to the workman making them liable.
Independent Contractor
Three requirements
1) Must be reasonable for occupier to have given the work to IC
2) Contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task
3) Occupier must check that the work has been properly done