Occupier's Liability Flashcards
Harris v Birkenhead Corp
Facts: A local authority made a compulsory purchase order on a house but before it could move in a child was injured on the premises.
Precedent: It is the legal right to control the state of the premises and not physical possession of the premises that matters.
Wheat v Lacon
Facts: D company gave manager license to use and rent out rooms on their premises and his guest was killed by defective stairs.
Precedent: An occupier within the meaning of the OLA need not exclusively occupy the premises
Edwards v Railway Executive
Facts: D was aware that children frequently climbed through a fence and had taken steps to deter entry. A child got through and was injured.
Precedent: Permission may not be implied by the occupier’s knowledge of the entrant’s presence or failure to deter entry.
Key Quote: “repeated trespass confers no license”
Hartwell v Grayson Rollo
Precedent: There may be more than one occupier of the same premises but their DoCs may be different in content
Glasgow Corp v Taylor
Facts - a child died after eating poisonous berries from a shrub in the park. allegedly D local authority knew of the poisonous berries but took no precautions.
Precedent - Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust
Precedent 1: If the state of the premises is not inherently dangerous and the danger arises from C’s conscious choice to do something dangerous liability will not usually arise.
Precedent 2: A child’s choice to do something dangerous will not always be excused by the courts.
Cunningham v Reading FC
Precedent: An occupier’s duty under the 1957 Act extends to preventing visitors from harming other visitors by foreseeable likely misconduct.
Braithwaite v Durham Steel Co
Precedent: If the occupier does not take reasonable steps to ensure visitors remain within the permitted area and owing to his negligence they step outside the area he will be liable for damage sustained thereby.
Lewis v Ronald
Precedent: If the visitor goes somewhere the occupier has expressly or impliedly warned him not to go the occupier will not be liable for damages sustained thereby.
Stone v Taffe
Precedent: If V’s permission to enter is limited by time and this was clearly communicated to him the occupier is not liable for damage sustained after expiry.
Latham v R Johnson
Precedent: If there is no allurement or dangerous object on the premises the occupier will not ordinarily be liable for extraordinary damages suffered by children.
Phipps v Rochester Corp
Precedent 1: S2.2 of the 1957 Act requires us to consider what the occupier is reasonably entitled to expect of the child’s parents.
Precedent 2: The primary responsibility for the care of young children lies with the parents and cannot be delegated to the occupier by the OLA
Roles v Nathan
Precedent: Under S.2(3)b the occupier may expect that a person exercising his calling will appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it.
Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants
Precedent: Where C is exercising his calling in response to a situation created by D’s negligence OR is injured by a risk incident to his calling that cannot be eliminated by proper skill S.2(3)b will not apply.
AMF International Ltd
If the work done by the independent contractor is complex S.2(4)b may require the occupier to have the contractor’s work supervised by a qualified specialist.
