Occupier's Liability Act 1984

Question 1

what is the occupier’s liability act 1984?

Answer 1

imposes common humanity on to occupiers towards trespassers.

Question 2

what is the scope of the duty?

Answer 2

the act applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors for ‘injury’ on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done.

Question 3

who is a trespasser?

Answer 3

a person who has no permission or authority to be on the occupier’s premises or a visitor who has gone beyond their permission to be on the premises.

Question 4

under what circumstances will the occupier owe a duty of care?

Answer 4

1. He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
2. Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of danger or may come into the vicinity of danger
3. The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case he may be expected to offer some protection

Question 5

what rules apply to adult trespassers?

Answer 5

1. No liability if trespasser injured by obvious danger (Ratcliff v McConnell)
2. Time of day and year relevant in deciding if Occupier owes duty of care: Donoghue v Folkestone properties)
3. Doesn’t have to spend lots of money making premises safe from obvious danger (Tomlinson v Congleton)
4. No liability if no reason to suspect presence of trespasser
5. No liability if no reason to suspect danger existed (Rhind v Astbury)

Question 6

what principle relating to adult trespassers does the case Donoghue v Folkenstone Properties (2003)

Answer 6

the time of day and year is relevant in deciding whether occupier owes a duty of care.

Question 7

what case shows that the time of day and year is relevant in deciding whether occupier owes a duty of care?

Answer 7

Donoghue v Folkenstone Properties (2003)

Question 8

what principle relating to adult trespassers does the case Tomlinson v Congleton (2003) show?

Answer 8

an occupier does not have to spend a lot of money in making premises safe safe from danger

Question 9

what case shows that an occupier does not have to spend a lot of money in making premises safe safe from danger?

Answer 9

Tomlinson v Congleton (2003)

Question 10

what principle does the case Higgs v Foster (2004) show?

Answer 10

occupier not liable if he had no reason to suspect presence of trespasser

Question 11

what case shows that an occupier not liable if he had no reason to suspect presence of trespasser?

Answer 11

Higgs v Foster (2004)

Question 12

what principle does the case Rhind v Ashbury Water park (2004) show?

Answer 12

occupier will not be liable if he was not aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect danger existed

Question 13

what case shows that an occupier will not be liable if he was not aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect danger existed?

Answer 13

Rhind v Ashbury Water park (2004)

Question 14

do the same statutory rules apply to child visitors as for adult visitors?

Answer 14

yes. judges will approach claims of child trespassers the same way they do for adult trespassers as can be in the case law.

Question 15

what cases illustrate how the same statutory rules used for adult trespassers apply to claims of child trespassers?

Answer 15

Keown v Coventry premises not dangerous, D not liable

Baldaccino v West Wittering (2008); no duty on part of occupier to warn against danger.