Act 1984 Flashcards
Intro to ACT 1984
A trespasser is a person who has no permission or authority to be on the occupier’s premises or a visitor who has gone beyond their permission on the premises.
Areas under 1984 Act
Adult and child trespasser are treated the same.
Scope of the duty
S.1(1)(a)
Under s.1(1)(a) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, the occupier owes a duty to people who are not lawful visitor for personal injury only.
S.1(3)(a)
Occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exist.
S.1(3)(b)
Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that there are trespasser in the vicinity.
(SWAIN V NATUI RAM PURI)
S.1(3)(c)
The danger is one against which the occupier can be reasonably expected to provide some protection.
1984 Act AO3
P - Provided trespassers have the right to claim compensation when injured.
DP - This doesn’t support public opinion as trespassers were given the same protection as lawful visitor.
WDP - This conflicts with the rule of law as differing judges outcome can make the law inconsistent.
Adult Trespasser
S.1(4)
the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. Objective test
Factors to consider when deciding liability
1) Obvious Danger
2) Time of day or year
3) Warning signs
4) Presence of a trespasser
5) Danger known
Ratcliff v McConell
Student jumped into open air swimming pool at night and suffered serious injuries.
Held: COA decided student is not entitled to damages as there is a obvious danger.
Ratcliff V McConell AO3
P - Go against aim of tort law as the aim is to compensate a injured person for the action of another.
DP - Imbalance between interest of occupier and the trespasser.
WDP - However many would agree a trespasser must accept full responsibility for their action. This uphold public policy.
Child trespasser
Same rules apply as adult trespasser
Keown V Conventry Healthcare NHS Trust
11 year old boy climbed up fire escape and fell.
Held: Hospital was not liable. boy was aware of the danger and there was no issue with the state of the premises.