Chapter 24- Occupiers' Liability

Question 1

Wheat v E. Lacon and Co. Ltd

Answer 1

-The manager of a pub was given the right to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though he had no ownership rights in the premises
-A guest fell down the stairs of that private part and was killed because there was no handrail on part of the stairs and an unknown person had removed the light bulb on the stairway
-HoL decided that both the manager and his employers could be occupiers under the Act so there could be more than one occupier of the premises
-Neither had breached their duty since it was a stranger who had removed the light bulb
-no liability
(occupiers)

Question 2

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Answer 2

-D’s owned a takeaway
-They had fitted slip resistant tiles and mopped the floor if it had been raining
-When the claimant came into the shop it was very busy and it had been raining
-She slipped and broke her ankle
-CoA decided that the D’s had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe
-Not liable as they didn’t have to make the shop completely safe
(OLA 1957- adult visitors)

Question 3

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Answer 3

-Claimant injured when he tripped and fell over a small lump of concrete protruding about 2 inches from the base of the traffic bollard at the Cathedral
-The bollard had previously been damaged by a car
-CoA decided that:
*Tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences. No occupier of premises could make sure all roads were maintained as the obligation on the occupier is to make the land reasonably safe for visitors and not to guarantee their safety. To impose liability there must be something over and above the risk of injury from the minor defects found on any road or path
*Risk is reasonably foreseeable only where there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as obliging the occupier to take remedial action. A visitor is reasonably safe even when there is a visible minor defect on the road which carries a foreseeable risk of causing injury
(OLA 1957- adult visitors)

Question 4

Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others

Answer 4

-Claimant injured when she trapped foot in a hole in a village green where a maypole had been
-She argued the owner of the village green had a duty to ensure that visitors were safe and that the British Legion had failed to fill the hole after the fete
-The local council had failed to adequately maintain it
-She originally won but failed in the CoA
-The court held that since her injury took place nearly 2 years after the maypole had been in place, the duty of the British Legion couldn’t last that long
-Although there was no specific evidence to support this view, the hole must have been opened again by a stranger and the incident was a pure accident
(OLA 1957- adult visitors)

Question 5

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 5

-7 yr ate poisonous berries in a public park and died
-The shrub on which the berries grew wasn’t fenced off
-Held that the council was liable to the child’s parents
-It was aware of the danger and the berries amounted to allurement to young children
(OLA 1957- child visitors)

Question 6

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Answer 6

-5 yr injured after falling down a trench dug by the council near a playground which the child frequently played in
-The court decided that the D was not liable because the court concluded that the parents should have had a child of that age under proper supervision
(OLA 1957- child visitors)

Question 7

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Answer 7

-Council failed to move an abandoned boat on its land for 2 years
-Children regularly played in the boat and it was clearly a potential danger
-2 boys aged 14, jacked the boat up to repair it, the boat fell and seriously injured 1
-The claim for compensation succeeded in the High Court but failed in the CoA
-As it was decided that, while the boat was an obvious allurement, the course of action taken by the boys and therefore the specific type of injury, was not foreseeable
-In an appeal, HoL reversed the view
-In their view it was foreseeable that children would play on the abandoned boat
-It was not necessary for the council to foresee exactly what they would do on it
-They considered that children often find ways of putting themselves in danger which needed to be taken into account by an occupier when considering how to keep them safe
(OLA 1957- child visitors)

Question 8

Roles v Nathan

Answer 8

-2 chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney of a coke-fired boiler
-The sweeps had been warned of the danger
-The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of the particular danger
(OLA 1957- people carrying out a trade)

Question 9

Haseldine v Daw and Son Ltd

Answer 9

-Claimant was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft
-Occupier was not liable for the negligent repair or maintenance of the lift as this work is a highly specialist activity and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm
(OLA 1957- independent contractors)

Question 10

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Answer 10

-Cricket club hired stunt team to carry out a ‘firework display’
-The team chose to use ordinary gunpowder, petrol and propane gas rather than more traditional fireworks
-They also then used the claimant, who was an unpaid amateur with no experience of pyrotechnics, for the stunt
-The claimant was burnt and broke an arm when the stunt went wrong
-The stunt team had no insurance
-CoA held the club was liable as it had failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors
(OLA 1957- independent contractors)

Question 11

Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Answer 11

-Child injured on school steps that were left icy after snow had been cleared
-The occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly and the danger should have been obvious to them
(OLA 1957- independent contractors)

Question 12

Rae v Marrs Ltd

Answer 12

-Deep pit inside a dark shed
-A warning, by itself, would be insufficient as it couldn’t be seen
(OLA 1957- Defences for occupiers)

Question 13

Staples v West Dorset District Council

Answer 13

-Danger of wet algae on a high wall should have been obvious and no further warning was required
(OLA 1957- Defences for occupiers)

Question 14

British Railway Board v Herrington

Answer 14

-6 yr was badly burned when he trespassed onto an electrified railway line
-British railway were aware of the gaps in the fencing and that children played in the area
-HoL introduced a duty of ‘common humanity’ which was a limited duty owed when the occupier knew of the danger and the likelihood of trespass
-Law Commission investigated this area of law in 1975 and as a result the 1984 Act was passed by Parliament
(OLA 1984- Background of the duty)

Question 15

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 15

-19 yr climbed fence of an open air pool at night and dived into it, hitting his head and was seriously injured
-CoA decided that the occupier was not required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury arising from obvious dangers
-In this case there was no hidden dangers as it is well known that swimming pools vary in depth and diving without checking depth is dangerous
(OLA 1984- adult trespassers)

Question 16

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Answer 16

-Claimant injured when he was trespassing on a slipway in a harbour and dived into the sea, hitting a grid pile used for mooring boats
-The grid pile would have been visible at low tide
-The injury happened in the middle of winter at midnight
-The court held that the occupier did not owe a duty of care under the 1984 Act as they would not expect that a trespasser would jump into the harbour at that time of day
(OLA 1984- adult trespassers)

Question 17

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 17

-Council owned a park, with a lake
-Warning signs prohibited swimming as the water was dangerous, but the council knew these signs were generally ignored
-The council decided to make the lake inaccessible but delayed starting work because of a lack of funds
-The claimant (18) went swimming, struck his head on the sandy bottom and suffered paralysis
-CoA succeeded his claim under the 1984 Act:
*The court felt the seriousness of the risk of injury, the frequency with which people were exposed to the risk and the fact that the lake acted as an allurement. Meant the scheme to make the lake inaccessible should have been completed with urgency
-The HoL however, accepted the council’s appeal for 3 reasons:
1)To be liable there had to be a danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted
2)It’s not the sort of risk that a defendant should have to guard against but one that the trespasser chose to run
3)Council would not have breached its duty even if the claimant was a lawful visitor as it was not reasonable for it to spend a lot of money preventing visitors being injured by an obvious danger
(OLA 1984- adult trespassers)

Question 18

Higgs v Foster

Answer 18

-Police officer investigating a crime entered the occupier’s premises to carry out surveillance
-He fell in an uncovered inspection pit suffering severe injuries, causing him to retire
-The officer was judged to be a trespasser on the premises
-Although the occupiers would have knew the pit was a potential danger, they could have not known his presence on the premises or in the vicinity, so they weren’t liable
(OLA 1984- adult trespassers)

Question 19

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Answer 19

-Occupier didn’t know of a submerged fibreglass container resting on the bottom of its lake
-Claimant ignored a notice saying ‘Private property. Strictly no swimming.’ and jumped into the lake and was injured by objects below the surface
-s 1(3)(c) requires the occupier to owe a duty if ‘the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the other some protection’
-As the occupier wasn’t aware of the dangerous objects no duty was owed
(OLA 1984- adult trespassers)

Question 20

Baldaccino v West Wittering

Answer 20

-14 yr climbed a navigational beacon off a beach as the tide was ebbing
-He dived of the beacon suffering neck injuries
-He was a lawful visitor to the beach but a trespasser to the beacon
-It was decided that there was no obvious duty on the part of the occupiers to warn against obvious dangers and the injuries did not result from the state of the premises
-His claim failed
(OLA 1984- child trespassers)

Question 21

Westwood v Post Office

Answer 21

-Claimant was an employee of the Post Office and was injured when he entered, as a trespasser, an unlocked room which had the notice ‘Only the authorised attendant is permitted to enter’
-The door should have been locked
-The defendants were not liable as the notice was a sufficient warning to an adult
(OLA 1984- Defences for an occupier)