Cases and principles

Question 1

Case: Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Answer 1

Facts: manager of pub given permission to rent out rooms in private quarters.
Principle: More than one occupier of premises-manager and employers.

Question 2

Case: Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)

Answer 2

Facts: 4 year old child injured in empty house. Local council owned the house.
Principle: council was in control of property-therefore the occupier.

Question 3

Bailey v Armes (1999)

Answer 3

Facts: D’s lived in flat above supermarket-their child’s friend was playing on area of roof that no one was in control of-no one was liable.
Principle: control over the area of property was not sufficient with D’s-no one was liable.

Question 4

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)

Answer 4

Facts: D’s were the owner of a takeaway. It was raining and people going into the takeaway made the floor slippery. D’s tried everything reasonable to dry the floor.
Principle: take such care as is reasonable, to ensure visitor is safe I using premises for the purpose they were invited.

Question 5

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)

Answer 5

Facts: Claimant injured when tripping and falling over damaged concrete.
Principle: D’s only have to make premises reasonably safe.

Question 6

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)

Answer 6

Facts: Child ate poisonous berries (that council knew were there) in local park and died.
Principle: the berries were an ‘allurement’ to the child-D’s found guilty.

Question 7

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Answer 7

Facts: 5 year old child inured by falling in trench whilst playing on open ground owned by local council.
Principle: Occupier entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children to go places which are potentially unsafe.

Question 8

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000)

Answer 8

Facts: council failed to move an abandoned and dangerous boat-2 children lifted the boat but the boat fell on one. Council liable for injuries.

Principle: Children can often find ways of putting themselves in danger so this must be taken into account.

Question 9

Roles v Nathan (1963)

Answer 9

Facts: 2 chimney sweeps died after inhaling Carbon Monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney. The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of that danger.

Principle: trades people (visitors) can reasonably be expected to understand the dangers involved in their trade. If injury was not to do with trade-common duty of care is assumed.

Question 10

Three requirements to protect the occupier for the torts of independent contractors. As under S 2 (4) of the 1957 Act.

Answer 10

1) Must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to a specialist contractor. (Haseldine v Daw and Son Ltd 1941)
2) Contractor hired must be competent for the task. (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)
3) Occupier must check the work has been properly done. (Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings 1945)

Question 11

Haseldine v Daw and Son Ltd (1941)

Answer 11

Facts: C was killed when lift failed. The occupier not liable as the work required a specialist to maintain the lift.
Principle: It must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to an independent contractor (to avoid being liable for injury caused by contractor’s work).

Question 12

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)

Answer 12

Facts: Cricket Club hired a stunt team to do ‘fireworks display’. Team chose to use gunpowder and other inappropriate materials. Also used C as stuntman-C was injured. Stunt team had no insurance. Cricket club found liable.
Principle: The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task (for the occupier to avoid liability for independent contractor’s tort).

Question 13

Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings (1945)

Answer 13

Facts: Child was injured on school steps that had been cleared of snow but had iced over. The occupiers were liable as they had failed to check the work had been done properly and danger should have been obvious.
Principle: The occupier must check the work has been done properly (to avoid liability due to the independent contractor’s tort).

Question 14

The 3 defences to a claim under the 1957 Act

Answer 14

1) Consent
2) Contributory negligence
3) Warning notices

Question 15

Principle: More than one occupier of premises-manager and employers.

Answer 15

Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Facts: manager of pub given permission to rent out rooms in private quarters.

Question 16

Principle: council was in control of property-therefore the occupier.

Answer 16

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)

Facts: 4 year old child injured in empty house. Local council owned the house.

Question 17

Principle: control over the area of property was not sufficient with D’s-no one was liable.

Answer 17

Bailey v Armes (1999)

Facts: D’s lived in flat above supermarket-their child’s friend was playing on area of roof that no one was in control of-no one was liable.

Question 18

Principle: take such care as is reasonable, to ensure visitor safe using premises for the purpose they were invited.

Answer 18

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)

Facts: D’s were the owner of a takeaway. It was raining and people going into the takeaway made the floor slippery. D’s tried everything reasonable to dry the floor.

Question 19

Principle: D’s only have to make premises reasonably safe.

Answer 19

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debbel (2016)

Facts: Claimant injured when tripping and falling over damaged concrete.

Question 20

Principle: Occupier has to protect children against ‘allurements’.

Answer 20

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)

Question 21

Principle: Occupier entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children to go places which are potentially unsafe.

Answer 21

Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Facts: Very young child falls in trench playing in enclosed occupier’s land.

Question 22

Principle: Children can often find ways of putting themselves in danger so this must be taken into account.

Answer 22

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000)

Facts: Teenager injured when playing on abandoned boat on council land.

Question 23

Principle: trades people (visitors) can reasonably be expected to understand the dangers involved in their trade. If injury was not to do with trade-common duty of care is assumed.

Answer 23

Roles v Nathan (1963)

Facts: Chimney sweep killed when working on chimney-chimney related death.