Booklet Two - Occupiers Liability 1957 Flashcards
Occupier
The person (s) in control of the premises
Occupier Key Case -
Wheat V Lacon and Co
Lacon owed a duty of care but not at fault for 3rd party actions
Occupiers Liability 1957
Occupiers of premises owe a duty of care to lawful visitors if duty of care is breached - compensation for personal injury and damage to property
Types of Visitors
- Invitees - people who have express permission to enter
- Licensees - person who have expressed or implied permission to be on land for a specific period e.g. postal worker
- Contractual Permission - Person who bought a ticket
- Statutory Right - Meter Reading, Bailiffs and police exercising a warrant
s.2 (2) Adults
CA 2 Part Test
1. Occupier must make premises reasonably safe for visitors not guarantee their safety
- Must be Real Source of danger
S.2 (2) Adults
Rochester Cathedral 2016
C tripped over one inch of concrete above the surface
Initially won damages - dismissed on appeal
Tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurances
S.2(3) Children
Occupiers should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
Premises must be reasonably safe for a child that age
S.2(3) Children
Allurement
Occupier must foresee a child would be allured to the danger
S.2(3) Children
Glasgow Corp v Taylor 1922
7 year old child died after eating poisonous berries near children’s play area
Council Liable, berries were an allurement - reasonable foreseeable that child would be allured and suffer harm
S.2(4)(A) Defences
Warning Notices
The Notice must enable visitor to be reasonably safe
Where danger is extreme or unusual, may need more than warning notice - Barrier
S.2(4)(A) Defences
Warning Notices
Cotton v Derbyshire CC (1994)
C fell off cliff.
Where there is an obvious danger no need to provide further protection
S.2(4)(B) - Defences
- Independant Contractors
Entrust - Heseldine v Daw 1941
Engineer failed to carry out repairs to a lift in block of flats properly. Tenant died when lift plunged to bottom.
D not liable for negligent repair or maintenance of the lift - Work is highly specialised - so reasonable to contract work out to specialist firm
S.2(4)(B) - Defences
- Independant Contractors
Competent - Bottomly v Todmorden Cricket Club 2003
Cricket club hired contractor for fireworks display. C injured in fireworks stunt.
D Liable - club had not checked to see if contractor was competent - not checked if insured etc
S.2(4)(B) - Defences
- Independant Contractors
Inspect - Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings 1945
Child Injured on School steps that were left icy after snow had been cleared off by contractors.
D Liable didn’t check work if work highly specialist - do not need to prove this part
Defences S.2(1) - Exclusion clauses
This means that an exclusion clause or notice may impose a lesser duty
Defences - S.2(1) - Exclusion Clauses
In a Private House
Is possible for residential occupiers - But unclear if this will succeed with children
Defences - S.2(1) - Exclusion Clauses
In a Supermarket
Consumer rights act states that traders cannot exclude liability for PI resulting from negligence
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Two-Part Test
1. C failed to take care for their own safety
2. Failure to take care contributed to damage suffered
If successful judge will decide % reduction (can be 100%)
S.2(5) OLA 1957 - Consent (volenti)
Two-Part Test
1. Was ‘C’ aware of the risk
2. Was the risk accepted freely (Voluntarily)?
