occupier’s liabilty 1984 Flashcards
what does ola 1984 cover?
84 ACT – covers unlawful visitors (typically trespassers)
what is a trespasser?
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
OLA 1984 Act provides compensation for … only
1984 Act provides compensation for personal injuries only
Section 1(1) 1984 Act
duty applies to trespassers 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 on them’
Section 1(3): - Occupier only owes a duty if:
- He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)
- He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger and; (Higgs v Foster)
- The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the other some protection
Higgs v Foster
Police officer investigating a crime entered the occupier’s premises to carry out surveillance. He fell into an uncovered inspection pit suffering severe injuries
Although they knew it was a danger they couldn’t have anticipated his presence so they were not liable
Occupier doesnt owe a duty 2 trespasser they dont expect 2 enter premise
Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)
Occupier did not know of a submerged fibreglass container resting on the bottom of the lake on its premises
C ignored a notice stating ‘private property’ and ‘strictly no swimming’ and he jumped into the lake and was injured by the object
As O didn’t know of danger there was no duty as per s.1(3)(c)
Occupier does not owe a duty if they are unaware of the danger
S1(4) OLA 1984
The duty owed under S1(4) is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises because of the danger
Obvious dangers
Courts have introduced the concept of ‘obvious dangers’ especially for adult trespassers – the occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by an obvious danger
Ratcliff v McConnell - Student (trespasser) seriously injured diving into swimming pool at night
The time of day and the time of the year when the accident happens
OLA 1984
The time of day and the time of the year when the accident happens will be relevant for whether the occupier owes a duty of care
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003) - trespasser seriously injured by diving into harbour in winter
Court held occupier did not owe C a duty of care under the 1984 Act as they would not expect a trespasser to do this at that time of day/year
Does the occupier have to spend a lot of money to keep premises safe?
OLA 1984
An occupier does not have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers
Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003) - trespasser injured swimming in lake owned by council
Cases involving child trespassers
OLA 1984
Same rules apply as to adults – same approach as to adults
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) - boy injured when falling off fire escape - hospital not liable as there was no danger due to state of premises
Baldaccino v West Wittering (2008) - boy climbed a navigational beacon sited off a beach, he dived off the beacon suffering neck injuries - there was no duty on the occupiers to guard against obvious dangers, and the injuries did not result from the state of the premises
Defences to a claim by a trespasser
Contributory negligence
Consent
Warnings (Westwood v Post Office)
Westwood v The Post Office
A notice posted on a motor room door that said ‘Only the authorised attendant is permitted to enter’
Held to be sufficient warning for an intelligent adult and the occupier was not liable
