Booklet Two - Occupiers Liability 1984 Flashcards
Occupier
The person/People in control of the premises
Premises
Fixed or moveable structure including vessels, vehicles and aircraft
Trespasser
A person who has no permission or has gone beyond or exceeded given permission
Occupier Liability Act 1984
Occupiers of premises owe a duty of care to trespassers if duty is breached then the occupier is liable for compensation for personal injury only
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
BRB v Herrington 1972
6-yr-old boy badly burned when trespassed onto electrified railway line through vandalised fencing.
D Liable - British Rail knew of the gaps in the fencing and that children were playing in the area
S.1 Danger due to state of premises
Only Covers personal injury (not damage to property))
Occupiers must have done or failed to do things to make the premises unsafe
S.1 Danger due to state of premises
Keown v Coventry NHS (2006)
11-yr-old boy climbed fire exit steps to the exterior of hospital, showing off in front of friends, fell and was injured.
D not liable, accident due to behaviour, not state of premises
S.1(3) - Duty Owed to Trespassers
A) Aware of Danger
Rhind v Astbury Water Park 2004
C dived into lake and was injured when they hit fibre glass containers that were in the lake
D not liable - was not aware the containers were in the lake
S.1(3) - Duty Owed to Trespassers
B) Knows of Trespassers
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties 2003
C injured off harbour slipway when diving into sea in the middle of the night in winter.
D not liable, would not expect trespasser doing that at that time of year/night
S.1(3) - Duty Owed to Trespassers
C) Offer some Protection
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003
C injured when diving into lake
D not liable, there were signs in place, despite the fact the council had plans to fill in the pond due to dangers
S.1(4) Standard of Care
Depends on the circumstances in each case.
S.1(4) Standard of Care
Factors:
- Nature of Premises
- Degree of Danger
- Practicality of Precautions
- Age of the trespasser
S.1(5) Defences - Warning Notices
Case by Case Basis.
If C is a child - warning may not be sufficient, depends on the age and understanding of the child
Unusual - need more such as barrier but if obvious notice will work
S.1(5) Defences - Warning Notices
Westwood v Post Office 1973
C injured when going into an area at work where he wasn’t permitted. Door wasn’t locked but was a warning sign - defence succeeded
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
2 part test
1. Claimant failed to take proper care in the circumstance of their own safety
2. The failure to take care was a contributory cause of the damage suffered
Judge decides a percentage reduction of damages, which can be up to 100%
Consent
Two-Part Test
1. Was C aware of the risk?
2. Was the risk accepted freely (voluntarily)?
