Occupier’s Liability Template - Lawful Visitors

Question 1

Who is the occupier?

Answer 1

The occupier is the person who controls the premises
Wheat v Lacon
APPLY

Question 2

What is the premises?

Answer 2

S1(3)(a) OLA 57
Any land and any buildings on the land
APPLY

Question 3

Who is the lawful visitor?

Answer 3

Why are they a lawful visitor?
State that the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 applies to them
APPLY

Question 4

A duty may arise…..

Answer 4

due to the dangerous state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them
APPLY - what is wrong with the premises?

Question 5

Adult lawful visitor

Answer 5

An adult lawful visitor is owed a common duty of care. Section 2,2 of OLA 1957 states that the occupier is expected to ‘take such care in all the circumstances as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the way in which he was invited’
APPLY

Question 6

Children are owed a greater duty of care

Answer 6

S2(3)(a) OLA 57 states the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
Glasgow v Taylor Corporation
However they can also expect adults to take care of small children
Phipps v Rochester
APPLY

Question 7

Lower duty of care for specialist visitors

Answer 7

S2(3)b states that an occupier may expect a specialist visitor will be aware of and protect himself against risks within his own specialism
Roles v Nathan
APPLY

Question 8

Adult visitors

Answer 8

In Laverton v Kipasha Takeaway and Debell v Rochester Cathedral the occupiers had not breached their duty as they had taken reasonable care whereas in James v White Lion the occupiers had breached their duty

Question 9

Children

Answer 9

In Phipps v Rochester corporation the occupier had not breached their duty whilst in Taylor v Glasgow corporation they had breached their duty
In jolley v Sutton borough council the occupier had breached their duty

Question 10

Specialist visitor

Answer 10

In roles v Nathan the occupier had not breached their duty

Question 11

Warning signs

Answer 11

S2(4)(a) states that an occupier may be able to carry out his duty by providing reasonable warning signs
Rae v marrs, sometimes a warning sign is not needed, staples v Dorset district council

Question 12

General risk factors

Answer 12

Practicality of taking the precaution> Latimer v AEC
How big is the risk? Bolton v stone
How much would it cost to guard against the risk? Bolton v stone

Question 13

Damage

Answer 13

What has the victim suffered?
For Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 you can claim for damage to property and personal injury

Question 14

What are the 3 defences?

Answer 14

Independent contractors, contributory negligence, warning signs

Question 15

Independent contractors

Answer 15

S2(4)(b) OLA 57 states the occupier is not liable if the visitor is injured by something dangerous created by faulty workmanship by an outside contractor.
It has to have been reasonable to bring in an independent contractor, Haseldine v Daw and Son.
Reasonable steps have to have been taken to ensure the contractor was competent, Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club.
Occupier has to take steps to ensure work has been properly done, Woodward v the Mayor of Hastings

Question 16

Warning signs (2)

Answer 16

S2(1) OLA 57 states the occupier may restrict or exclude altogether the duty of care owed to visitors.
This can be done by putting up a sign saying he does not accept responsibility.
The sign has to be clearly worded and visible, Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons LTD
However a trader cannot restrict liability for death or personal injury under sc. 65 of Consumer Rights Act 1965

Question 17

Contributory negligence

Answer 17

S2(3) OLA 57 states when considering a claim the court should consider he care and lack of care looked for in a visitor.
Did the claimant contribute to their own loss?