eval of occupiers

Question 1

what does OLA 1957 provide

Answer 1

That the occupier may owe a duty of care to protect lawful visitors

Question 2

definition of an occupier

Answer 2

an occupier has no statutory definition and can include those with sufficient control over the premises

Question 3

sufficient control over the premises case

Answer 3

wheat v lacon

Question 4

what is a premises according to s.1(3)a

Answer 4

a fixed moveable structure

Question 5

what is the s for duty of care

Answer 5

s2(1)

Question 6

what is O’s duty

Answer 6

to do what is reasonable to see the visitor will be reasonably safe for which they’ve been invited

Question 7

Stables v West Dorset Council

Answer 7

No obligation to warn/protect against obvious risk

Question 8

what is the rule under s2(3)(a)

Answer 8

a greater duty is owed to children by an occ

Question 9

Glasgow v Taylor

Answer 9

a greater duty is owed to children

Question 10

Phipps v Rochester

Answer 10

courts are more likely to hold that very young children are the responsibility of the parent

Question 11

s.2(3)b

Answer 11

contractors

Question 12

Nathan v Roles

Answer 12

an occupier can expect a contractor will guard against any special risks

Question 13

2.2(4)b plus case

Answer 13

contractors will be regarded as occupiers in relation to work Hasan v Daw

Question 14

when technical…

Answer 14

there is very little an occupier can do

Question 15

what is the remedy

Answer 15

damages

Question 16

Prior to OLA 57

Answer 16

the common law was both harsh and
complex and there were different levels of standard
expected for different types of visitor – this meant that justice was only provided to some.

One of the main objectives of the Act was to simplify the common law so that justice is provided for all lawful entrants

Question 17

words within the act point-

Answer 17

One strength of the law on occupiers’ liability is the broad definition of key concepts such as occupier, lawtul vIsitor and premises.

This helps ensure that the scope of the law provides the widest possible protection to lawful visitors and allows for a potentially just outcome to be achieved

Question 18

words within the act dp

Answer 18

In Wheat v Lacon the court laid down a control test to determine whether a person was classitied as an occupier. This test ensures that the law extends beyond owners of property and recognises the reality that in many situations those running businesses or living on property are not the owners of the premises

Question 19

words within the act wdp

Answer 19

. However, the breadth of the law could cause uncertainty as occupiers may be unaware of the extent of their potential liability. For example, they could be liable for a defective ladder as in Wheeler v Copas. On the other hand, the fact that the meaning of premises does cover moveable structures as well as venicles, vessels and aircraft ensures that people are protected and can obtain compensation in a broad range ot situations.

Question 20

concept of reasonableness p

Answer 20

One strength of OL is that occupiers are only required to do what is reasonable.This is judged objectively and ensures that occupiers are judged by the standards of other occupiers and ensures a degree of consistency in how the law operates.

Furthermore, the requirement of reasonableness helps ensure that the law reflects a fair balance between the need to protect the safety of lawful visitors and the interests of the occupier by having a duty which does not impose a disproportionate burden. Occupiers are therefore only liable when they are at fault.

Question 21

concept of reasonableness dp

Answer 21

This can be seen in the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway where the occupier had taken reasonable precautions to protect customers in heavy rain by providing an absorbent mat and mopping the floor at intervals.

Question 22

concept of reasonableness wdp

Answer 22

In addition, the strength of the reasonableness requirement can also be seen in the rule that there is no duty to protect or warn of obvious risks (Cotton v Derbyshire Dales; Staples v West Dorset). However, a person could possibly be liable for something they were not aware of - for example water damage to a roof causing ceiling plaster to fall on the audience as seen in the Piccadilly Circus theatre incident in 2019.

Question 23

children p

Answer 23

Another strength of the law is the extent of the duty owed to children. The law recognises that children are more vulnerable than adults and deserving of a greater degree of protection (section 2 (3)(a)).The law is recogonsing public interest

Question 24

children dp

Answer 24

its appropriate to have additional responsibility towards children as they are in a position to protect them from any danger. This can be seen in the case of Glasgow V Taylor where the council failed to protect children from a tree with poisonous berries. It would have been easy to do so, at little cost and would not have imposed an unreasonable burden on the council.

Furthermore, the council is providing a public service and should be accountable for their actions. The tree acted as an allurement and posed a danger to children. A further example of this can be seen in Jolley v Sutton where the courts recognised the doctrine of allurement in which a child trespasser can be treated as a lawful visitor if their presence on the premises is a consequence of the allurement.

Question 25

children wdp

Answer 25

. In contrast, the law recognises that very young children should be supervised by parents and this protects occupiers from claims which would be unfair given the fact that almost anything is a hazard to very young children as recognised in Phipps v Rochester. However - there is no clear guidance on the distinction between very young children and older children.

Question 26

reforms

Answer 26

Introducing a “no fault” liability scheme - so injured visitors, whoever they are, can claim compensation. This could be funded through insurance or a government scheme.

However, this would not give occupiers the same incentive to improve their facilities and take precautions and might be regarded as unfair as occupiers who were careless would have the same liability as those who took reasonable precautions. The strength of the system is that all those injured would receive appropriate compensation without the need to bring a case.
A no fault scheme could be criticised as undermining the principle of personal (individual) responsibility.
Link to the wording of the question.

Question 27

1984 p1 no auto duty to tresspassers

Answer 27

One way in which OLA 1984 is fair on Occupiers is that there is no automatic duty of care owed to trespassers, unlike OLA 1957 with lawful visitors, and the duty is only owed if the three criteria are met.This promotes fairness as it would be wrong for an Occupier to automatically owe a duty to somebody who is acting unlawfully by trespassing on their premises

Question 28

1984 dp 1

Answer 28

For example, in Donoghue v Folkestone it would have been morally wrong for the Occupier to owe a duty to people who trespass and swim in the lake, especially in the winter months when it is unexpected. This position ensures that trespassers must be somewhat personally responsible for their own wellbeing, and ensures personal autonomy.

Question 29

1984 wdp 1

Answer 29

On the other hand, it could be argued by some that Occupiers’ owing a duty to trespassers is unfair as the person is acting unlawfully and it could be seen as the law promoting the rights of trespassers rather than Occupiers.

Question 30

1984 p2 not expected to go above and beyond

Answer 30

Furthermore, the legal position that a warning can discharge the Occupiers’ duty is fair on the Occupier as it ensures that they are not expected to be going above and beyond to protect those trespassing on their premises.

Question 31

1984 dp 2

Answer 31

For example, in Tomlinson v Congleton the signs prohibiting swimming were sufficient to alert the Claimant to the danger, and so the Occupier was not held liable for his injuries.

Question 32

1984 wdp 2

Answer 32

This principle, therefore, protects Occupiers from being liable for issues outside of their control, and so upholding the principle of individual autonomy as it recognises that if the warning is sufficient to warn of the danger then this is the trespasser’s personal responsibility. If this had been decided differently then it would have shifted the blame and could encourage trespassing and make Occupiers’ liable, which would be morally wrong. This then demonstrates how the law on OLA 1984 is fair on Occupiers.

Question 33

1984 p3 subjective

Answer 33

One way in which the law on OLA 1984 is fair for Occupiers is that it is quite subjective. The duty will only be owed under S.1(3) if the Occupier knows of the danger, or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. This is fair for the Occupier as it ensures that they are not expected to offer protection from dangers that they are unaware of - this would place a great burden on them to be patrolling their premises at their own expense.

Question 34

1984 dp 3

Answer 34

For example, the fibreglass container in Rhind v Astbury was not visible from outside of the water, and it would be unjust to require the Occupier to have carried out subwater investigations on the off chance that there may be debris which could injure somebody who trespasses.

Question 35

1984 wdp 3

Answer 35

Furthermore, in Donoghue v Folkestone it was determined that the criteria in S.1(3) could be judged subjectively as the Occupier may expect trespassers in the lake in the summer months, but not in the winter. This is fair on the Occupier as it does not place a great burden on them to be protecting potential trespassers at every single moment.