CASES - Occupiers liability Flashcards
occupier
Wheat V Lacon & co ltd
Held - occupier is a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises is the occupier this can be shared with others. Landlord and Brewery were liable.
Premises
Keown
Held - hospital not liable. The premises were safe and the boy caused the accident himself.
Adult - type of visitor
Rochester cathedral V Debell
Held - Not liable. Slips, trips and falls are everyday occurences premises must be reasonably safe not completely safe.
child - type of visitor
Taylor V Glasgow Corporation
Held - Liable. The berries were an allurement that Ds were aware of and offered no protection against.
Trademan & rescuers - type of visitor
Roles V Nathan
Held - Not liable. Tradesmen have a duty to protect themselves against known risks to their trade.
independent contractors
Alexander V Freshwater Properties
Held - the occupier and the IC were equally liable. The contractor’s work was faulty and the occupier knew.
Contributory negligence/ warning notices
English Heritage V Taylor
Held - drop was obvious danger D should have taken reasonable steps to protect visitors. Eng Heritage in breach of duty by failing to provide adequate warning sign. Contributory neg of 50% was applied due to V walking on an informal path.
Was the occupier aware of the danger
Rhind V Astubury Water park
Held - D were not liable as they were not aware of the danger (fiberglass)
Did occupier know trespasser may enter
Higgs V Foster
Held - D was not liable. There was no belief trespassers would come into thr area. C climbed a wall to enter.
risk involved means occupier expected to offer some protection
Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council
Held - D was not liable dangers were obvious and warning signs displayed. D not expected to offer any additional protection.
