Occupier's Liability

Question 1

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957

Answer 1

Lawful visitors (LV)

Question 2

Wheat v E Lacon

Answer 2

Occupiers = exercise sufficient degree of control (≠ exclusive)

Question 3

Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 3

LV - Lake for watersports, not swimming. C dived, broke his neck/ → Beyond purpose of invitation + foolhardiness = cause
→ Voluntary assumption of risk
→ No duty to warn against obvious dangers

OLA 1957: Starting assumption that a duty is owed to visitors

OLA 1984: Assumption that no duty is owed to trespassers

Question 4

Jolley v Sutton

Answer 4

LV - Foreseeable that rotting boat would attract children, might lead to injury. Occupiers must expect children to be less careful

Question 5

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 5

LV - Shrub not fenced, poisonous berries, 7yo child died. → Obvious allurement, completely foreseeable

Question 6

Phipps v Rochester

Answer 6

LV - The occupier is not responsible for looking after small children, still parents’ duty. Here: trench = obvious risk to big children

Question 7

Haseldine v Daw

Answer 7

LV - C injured by faulty lift; Hiring a reputable engineering company is sufficient to discharge the duty of the occupier.

Question 8

Gwilliam v West Herts NHS Trust

Answer 8

LV - duty of care extends to checking whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent

Question 9

Occupier’s Liability Act 1984

Answer 9

Trespassers (T)

Question 10

Donoghue v Folkestone

Answer 10

Trespass in harbour, dived into sea. Winter night! (so stupid) → D aware of danger, could not reasonably expect that, no duty of care

Question 11

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 11

Students, swimming pool on campus. 7ft tall fence + warning signs not to be used at night + sign where shallow end was → No liability, Volenti applies here