Occupier's Liability 1957 AO1 (Eval) Flashcards
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957
* covers claims made by lawful visitors against the occupier, as set out WvE.LCL
Section 1- ‘57
d must have either express perm (invitee/contractual perm), implied perm (licensee- LvW), delivery maker or legal right of entry
Section 1(3)(a)- ‘57
d, the occupier (WvE.LCL), must be in control the premises (WvC)
Section 2(1)- ‘57
d owes a common duty of care to c as an adult/child lawful visitor
Section 2(2)- ‘57
d must “take such care in all circumstances… is r to see that visitor will be r safe in using the premises” (LvKTS)
Section 2(3)(a)- ‘57
c is child =special DoC- PvBHW quote & GCvT allurement
-injury rf and w/o warning (JvLBS, LvYCC)
Section 2(3)(b)- ‘57
expert visitor carry out work will “app and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to it” (RvN) x apply- rescuers (OvT)
Section 2(4)(b)- ‘57
d pass liability to ind con (FvW) because c injured by their work provided:
- d took r steps to ensure z comp (BvTCC)
- r to for d to give work to z
- d check non-tec work properly done (WvMH, HvD)
Wheat v E.Lacon and Co Ltd
- OLA ‘57.. against the occupier
- D is the occupier
Lowery v Walker
S1, implied permission e.g licensee *
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
S2(2), d must “take such care in all circumstances… is r to see that visitor will be r safe in using the premises”
Perry v Butlins Holiday World
S2(3)(a) child special DoC: D “must be prep for children to be less careful than adults… the p must be r safe for a child of that age”
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
S2(3)(a) child special DoC: …especially if there is an allurement
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
C’s injuries must be reasonably foreseeable
Liddle v Yorkshire CC
…rf and without warning
Roles v Nathan
S2(3)(b), expert visitor “appreciate and guard against any special risk ordinarily incidental to it”
Ogwo v Taylor
S2(3)(b), expert visitor… x apply to rescuers
Ferguson v Welsh
S2(4)(b), d may be able to pass liability on ind con
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
S2(4)(b), ind con: provided d took r steps to check z was competent
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, Haseldine v Daw
s2(4)(b), ind con: it was r for d to give the work to z & checked non-tec had been properly done
Sections ‘57
- s1 permission
- s1(3)(a) o control p
- s2(1) common DoC
- s2(2) r safe
- s2(3)(a) child Doc
- s2(3)(b) expert vis
- s2(4)(b) ind con
* covers claims made by lawful visitors against the occupier, as set out WvE.LCL
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957
d must have either express perm (invitee/contractual perm), implied perm (licensee- LvW), delivery maker or legal right of entry
Section 1- ‘57
d, the occupier (WvE.LCL), must be in control the premises (WvC)
Section 1(3)(a)- ‘57
d owes a common duty of care to c as an adult/child lawful visitor
Section 2(1)- ‘57
d must “take such care in all circumstances… is r to see that visitor will be r safe in using the premises” (LvKTS)
Section 2(2)- ‘57
c is child =special DoC- PvBHW quote & GCvT allurement
-injury rf and w/o warning (JvLBS, LvYCC)
Section 2(3)(a)- ‘57
expert visitor carry out work will “app and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to it” (RvN) x apply- rescuers (OvT)
Section 2(3)(b)- ‘57
d pass liability to ind con (FvW) because c injured by their work provided:
- d took r steps to ensure z comp (BvTCC)
- r to for d to give work to z
- d check non-tec work properly done (WvMH, HvD)
Section 2(4)(b)- ‘57
- OLA ‘57.. against the occupier
- D is the occupier
Wheat v E.Lacon and Co Ltd
S1, implied permission e.g licensee *
Lowery v Walker
S2(2), d must “take such care in all circumstances… is r to see that visitor will be r safe in using the premises”
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
S2(3)(a) child special DoC: D “must be prep for children to be less careful than adults… the p must be r safe for a child of that age”
Perry v Butlins Holiday World
S2(3)(a) child special DoC: …especially if there is an allurement
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
C’s injuries must be reasonably foreseeable
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
…rf and without warning
Liddle v Yorkshire CC
S2(3)(b), expert visitor “appreciate and guard against any special risk ordinarily incidental to it”
Roles v Nathan
S2(3)(b), expert visitor… x apply to rescuers
Ogwo v Taylor
S2(4)(b), d may be able to pass liability on ind con
Ferguson v Welsh
S2(4)(b), ind con: provided d took r steps to check z was competent
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
s2(4)(b), ind con: it was r for d to give the work to z & checked non-tec had been properly done
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, Haseldine v Daw
- s1 permission
- s1(3)(a) o control p
- s2(1) common DoC
- s2(2) r safe
- s2(3)(a) child Doc
- s2(3)(b) expert vis
- s2(4)(b) ind con
Sections ‘57
