Eval of OL - Comparison of the Two Acts Flashcards
Difference: what can be claimed for
Lawful visitors - OLA 1957 claim can be for property damage or personal injury
Trespassers - s.1(1) OLA 1984 can only claim for personal injury
Justified as trespassers deserve less protection
Also acts as deterrent to discourage trespassers from entering premises unlawfully and from trying to make a claim if they are injured whilst doing so (keeps case out of the courts)
Tomlinson v Congleton - Lord Hoffman, trespassers “should not ordinarily be able to force duties upon unwilling hosts”
difference: different tests are in line with public opinion
As mentioned above it is harder for a trespasser to claim than a lawful visitor
This is supported by public opinion which shows fairness
Too many claims for trespassers would clog up the courts
Revill v Newbury - homeowner injured burglar and had to pay compensation, but public donated to fund to help D pay compensation
Similarity: law does allow for claims for injuries caused on another’s land
provides justice for claimants
Even for trespassers as Herrington states that there is a ‘common humanity’ that should be allowed - if D is aware of risk and knows that trespassers could get hurt, you should be able to claim
also, in both acts the specific danger needs to be identified, though 1984 you need to be aware
allows for fairness as it means everyone can claim as long as it is justified
Similarity: both Acts prevent claims for obvious risks
Makes sure it is fair for D who does not need to pay for an obvious risk
Seen mainly in trespass case - Ratcliff - diving into a pool is an obvious risk that an adult should be aware of = no liability
Also lawful visitors - Sutton - no liability for man who fell off a bridge in a public park as “not every accident…has to be the fault of another”
Ensures only legitimate and justified claims are successful
Also acts as a deterrent to stop claims from clogging up the courts from claimants who are trying to get compensation for their own mistakes
