LAW P2 TORT (OLA 57)

Question 1

What is the definition of an occupier?

Answer 1

An occupier can be defined as anyone who is in control of the premises

Question 2

What is the case for an occupier?

Answer 2

Wheat v lacon, someone can be seen as an occupier if they have occupational control over the premises.

Question 3

What des s.1(3)(a) OLA 57 state?

Answer 3

s.1(3)(a) states that the act applies not only to land and building, but extends to fixed and movable structure including any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.

Question 4

What is the case for S.1(3)(A)?

Answer 4

Wheeler v copas, the court noted that the adder came under the definition of premises

Question 5

Who does the OLA 57 act impose a duty of care on?

Answer 5

OLA 57 imposes a duty of care on occupiers to lawful visitors

Question 6

What is the protected damage under the act?

Answer 6

The protected damage under the act includes death, personal injury, and property damage

Question 7

What is the definition of a lawful visitor?

Answer 7

A lawful visitor can be defined as anyone who has been invited onto the premises by the occupier, or anyone entering the premises in exercise of a right conferred by the law.

Question 8

What is the case for lawful visitors?

Answer 8

Lowery v walker, a license was implied through the defendants acquiescence

Question 9

What is the common duty of care under OLA 57?

Answer 9

The common duty of care is set out in s.2(2) OLA 57, which states that the common duty of care is to take such care in all circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes which he is there for

Question 10

What is the case for the common duty of care?

Answer 10

Taylor v Glasgow corporation, D should have taken sufficient measures to draw attention to the concealed danger

Question 11

What are the situations where the standard of care may vary?

Answer 11

• Child visitors
• where occupier has provided warning signs
• Independent contractors

Question 12

What is the cases for the different standards of care?

Answer 12

• Jolley v Sutton (child visitors), its foreseeable that children are likely to be at more of a risk of danger than adults
• Roles v Nathan (warnings) , D would have been safe had they heeded the warnings from the occupier
• Ferguson v Welsh (independent contractors), the danger arose from the unsafe system of work adopted by the welsh brothers

Question 14

What are the cases for the defences for OLA 57?

Answer 14

• Titchener v British railway boards (volenti), the defendants did not owe a duty to a trespasser who was fully aware of the risks
• Revill v Newbury (contributory), Cs damages were reduced to reflect his responsibility for his own injuries