Chapter 5 Occupiers Liability Flashcards
Which of the following statements regarding the law of occupier’s liability in British Columbia is TRUE:
(1) The Occupiers Liability Act has made no changes to the common law.
(2) The common law distinction between an invitee and a licensee may still be relevant under the Occupiers Liability Act.
(3) Only the registered owner of a property may be held liable for occupier’s liability.
(4) Trading services representatives do not need to concern themselves with occupier’s liability except in respect to their own property.
2
At common law, which of the following statements is TRUE regarding the liability of an occupier?
(1) An occupier of land owes a duty to an invitee to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from any “unexpected” dangers or hazards on the land of which he or she is aware or ought to be aware.
(2) An occupier of land owes no duty of care under the common law to trespassers and may deal with them as he or she chooses.
(3) The duty of care owed by an occupier of land at common law to children is somewhat less than that owed to invitees and licensees.
(4) An invitee is owed a lesser standard of care by an occupier than that owed to a licensee.
1
The duty of care imposed by the Occupiers Liability Act does NOT apply to:
(1) risks willingly accepted by a person as his/her own risks.
(2) the condition of the premises.
(3) activities on the premises.
(4) the conduct of third parties on the premises.
1
Which of the following statements about the law in British Columbia governing occupiers liability are TRUE?
A. The language of the Occupiers Liability Act expressly preserves the common law distinction between licensees and invitees.
B. Under the statute there can be more than one occupier of land at the same time.
C. The occupier’s liability does not extend to risks willingly assumed by a visitor as his or her own risks.
D. The language of the Occupiers Liability Act would probably allow for the imposition of a lesser standard of care to be owed to a trespasser than to a person with permission to be on the premises.
(1) A, B and D are true.
(2) A and D are true.
(3) B, C and D are true.
(4) A, B, C and D are true
3
Which of the following statements is TRUE regarding the liability of an occupier under the common law of torts?
(1) An occupier of land owes a duty to an invitee to protect at all costs the invitee from any “unexpected” dangers or hazards on the land.
(2) An occupier of land owes a minimal duty of care under the common law to trespassers and is required only to refrain from intentionally harming them.
(3) The duty of care owed by an occupier of land at common law to licensees is somewhat greater than that owed to invitees.
(4) A child is owed a lesser standard of care by an occupier than that owed to a licensee.
2
Howard slipped on a patch of ice and broke his ankle when walking up Laura’s driveway to deliver a package. As a result, Howard suffered loss of wages until he recovered.
One or more of the following statements may be TRUE.
A. Howard is a trespasser and therefore Laura does not owe him a duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act.
B. If Laura has taken reasonable precautions such as applying sand or salt regularly to prevent ice building up on the driveway, she will not be liable to Howard under the Occupiers Liability Act.
C. If Laura is only a tenant under a month-to-month lease of the premises, she will not be liable to Howard.
D. Laura will be liable to Howard for all his damages even if she was not negligent.
Which of the above statements are TRUE.
(1) Only B and C are true.
(2) Only B is true.
(3) Only A, B and D are true.
(4) Only D is true.
2
Which of the following statements concerning occupiers liability is FALSE?
(1) Under the BC Occupiers Liability Act, the common law categories of visitor are explicitly retained.
(2) At common law, an occupier owed a greater duty to invitees than to licensees.
(3) Merely warning children of a danger may not meet the necessary standard of care: an occupier may be obliged to take positive steps to prevent injury to children on his or her premises.
(4) There may be more than one occupier of premises at the same time, under the BC Occupiers Liability Act.
1
Eugene and Lenore visited Green Maple Tree Farms. The property is owned and operated by Rodney. Trees kept for sale are placed in holes in the ground, with their roots encased in burlap. The holes are not filled in when a tree is removed, yet are located in a grid pattern which is apparent to any viewer. Signs are located at the beginning and end of every row of trees warning customers to watch for and avoid open holes. Eugene and Lenore walked among the rows of trees while selecting a tree for their purchase. An open hole (approximately 3 feet in diameter) was noticed by them, in response to which Lenore walked around the hole and Eugene attempted to step across the hole. Eugene fell into the hole and fractured his leg. Shortly after this event, Lenore tripped over a green garden hose lying unseen in the grass between the rows of trees, which was left by Rodney earlier in the day. Lenore broke her arm in her fall.
Which of the following statements are TRUE?
A. Rodney is likely liable to both Eugene and Lenore for their injuries suffered as a result of his breach of the duty of care owed to them under the Occupiers Liability Act.
B. Eugene will probably not recover any damages in a lawsuit against Rodney because he breached his duty to take reasonable care for his own safety; he was the author of his own harm.
C. Lenore acted reasonably in avoiding the danger presented by the hole. Her injury from tripping on the garden hose was a direct result of the occupier’s negligence; therefore, she will probably succeed in a lawsuit against Rodney.
D. Rodney can successfully defend against a lawsuit by both Eugene and Lenore, using the defence contained in the Occupiers Liability Act that an occupier has no duty of care to a person in respect of risks willingly accepted by that person as his or her own risks.
(1) B and D only.
(2) A, C and D only.
(3) B and C only.
(4) All of the above
3
Ethan visited a used car lot, owned and operated by Clara. The lot contains a variety of used cars, in addition to a marked off area where Clara keeps a variety of car parts. There are large signs around the marked off area, warning customers not to enter the area without the presence of an employee. Ethan, while walking around the lot, noticed a set of vintage car wheels in the marked off area. Disregarding the signage, Ethan entered the area to get a closer look at the wheels. Unfortunately, Ethan stepped on a small engine part that was lying on the ground and slipped and broke his ankle. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
(1) If Ethan had been trespassing on Clara’s lot, Ethan would have been owed no duty of care whatsoever under the Occupiers Liability Act.
(2) If Ethan was an infant, he would likely be owed a higher duty of care than an adult under the common law because of an infant’s relative inability to appreciate the danger presented by marked off areas in a used car lot.
(3) Clara could not be held liable to Ethan if she was merely leasing the lot; only the owner of the land can be sued under the Occupiers Liability Act.
(4) If Clara had an employee supervise the lot, and Clara was away from the lot at the time of the injury, only the employee can be held liable under the Occupiers Liability Act.
2
Mimi was house-sitting for her friends Tom and Lizzie while they were on a three month photo-safari in Africa. The front porch was damaged in a freak storm that caused a tree to fall and smash the bottom two steps. Mimi didn’t have the money to hire a carpenter to repair the stairs, so she attached a large sign to the bottom of the steps reading, “DANGER KEEP OFF”. Dave, an out of work handyman who could not read English, was walking from house to house in the neighbourhood looking for casual work. He entered Tom and Lizzie’s property, and not understanding the sign started up the steps to the front door. Dave landed on the damaged step, and the weight of his body was more than the step could stand. He broke his leg in two places, and having no insurance, has run up $3,750 in medical bills. Dave now intends to begin a lawsuit. Which of the following statements is FALSE?
(1) Under the Occupiers Liability Act, both Mimi and the absent owners qualify as “occupiers.”
(2) Dave will be unsuccessful in his lawsuit because he willingly accepted the risk of injury when he walked up the broken steps.
(3) The duty of care owed by an occupier under the Occupiers Liability Act applies in relation to the condition of the premises, activities on the premises, or the conduct of third parties on the premises.
(4) At common law, an occupier owed a higher standard of care to invitees than was owed to licensees or trespassers.
2
