Evaluation of occupiers liability Flashcards
What is critiqued about the definitions of ‘occupier’ and ‘premises’?
The law has taken a wide approach to these terms which favours the claimant and makes it easier to succeed in a claim.
Why have the courts not allowed some cases to succeed?
Because they have felt that allowing some cases to succeed even where they should, may flood the courts.
How does the 1984 act, act as a deterrent?
Acts as a deterrent as it is difficult for them to succeed, strict set of rules must be followed and they can only claim limited damages for personal injury.
What has been criticised about obvious dangers?
In both acts people can not claim for damage caused by obvious dangers. This reduces some of the pressure on occupiers.
Why may the rule on children be seen as unfair in the 1957 act?
They owe a ‘special duty’ of care towards children, this higher level of care may be seen as unfair on the occupier.
There is also no clear age limit as to when the special duty is no longer owed so changed based on each case.
What may be seen as unfair regarding children in the 1984 act?
Occupiers owe the same standard of care to child trespasser as they do adult trespassers, this may seem unfair when taking into account the 1957 act’s rule on children.
What are some suggested reforms?
- All occupiers should have compulsory insurance to cover any injuries incurred by visitors/ trespassers. (Saves courts time).
- No-fault liability where all claimants receive compensation.
