Occupier's Liability Evaluations

Question 1

How effectively do the 57 and 84 Acts protect Children?

Answer 1

1. Rules for Lawful visitors Unfair
   - Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell - ‘reasonably foreseeable to the reasonable person’
2. Problems with Child Visitors
   - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS trust (DOC same as adults)
   - Phipps, O didnt have an O to unsupervised 5yr, Taylor, O had DOC to supervised 7yr
3. Limiting Rights of Trespassers
   - Dooghue v Folkstone Properties - Courts unwilling to award damages to tresapsser if risk is obious (children less perceptive of obvious)

Question 2

Discuss the extent to which the OLA 57 differs from the OLA 84

Answer 2

1. Overall Comparison
   - O should take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe (Laverton v KTS)
   - ‘they should not ordinarily be able to force duties upon willing hosts (Tomlinson v CBC)
2. Problems with children
   - Keown v Conventry Healthcare NHS Trust - same DOC as for adults (kids less perceptive of risk)
   - Phipps, no DOC with unsupervised 5 yr, Talor, DOC with supervised 7yr
3. Attitudes to Trespassers
   - Revill v Newbury - O injured C who tried to break into their shed and C got legal aid (major public backlash)
4. Limiting Rights of Trespassers
   - Donoghue v Folkstone Properties - courts unwilling to give for obvious risk (little regard for individual case)
   - Similar with Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell though

Question 3

How effective is 57 act at protecting lawful visitors?

Answer 3

1. Failed Claims unfair/ridding compensation culture? (DOESNT PROTECT)
   - Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral - not to open the floodgates - visitors take a certain level of responsibility
2. Problems with Children (DOES PROTECT)
   - s2(3)(a) protects them more
   - issue with parental supervision (Phipps, no DOC with supervised 5yr, Taylor, DOC with supervised 7yr)
3. Obvious Dangers (DOESNT PROTECT)
   - Edwards v Sutton LBC, not liable danger is obvious
   - unfair on injured Cs
4. Wide interpretation
   - ‘Occupier’ could be many different peopelle
   - ‘Premises even include lifts/ladders

Question 4

Discuss the extent to which the OLA 1957 is fair on Occupiers?

Answer 4

1. Some things are accidents (DOES)
   - Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell,
   some things have no o ne to blame
2. Wide Definitions (DOESNT)
   - O could be anyone and may include someone not really fit to be
   - premises even include ladders and lifts
3. Child Supervision (DOES)
   - Taylor v Glasgow Corporation, shifts responsibility to parents
4. Common DOC too broad (DOESNT)
   - s2(2) and Laverton v KTS, what does reasonable mean?

Question 5

Discuss the extent to which OLA 84 is fair on Occupiers?

Answer 5

1. Defences (DOES)
   - Contributory often applicable and reasonable on O for volenti as puts responsibility on C for trespassing
2. Wide Definition (DOESNT)
   - O could be someone not really fit to act as O
   - Premises include lifts and ladders
3. Only Liable for injury (DOES)
   - Shifts resp onto Cs and obviously discourages trespassing and promotes greater resp
4. Liability for Acts/Omissions (DOESNT)
   - under s1(1), broadens the scope of what a trespasser can claim for