occupiers Flashcards
what is an occupier?
an occupier is a person who exercises a sufficient control over the premises.
according to wheat v lacon do they need to be the owner?
no
Can there be more than one occupier?
Yes, they can be sold on multiple occupiers
What does a visitor refer to?
Someone’s express or implied permission to be on land, as well as those with legal right of entry, such as a contractor, or a postman
what does imply permission include
licenses people who visited multiple times have implied permission
lowery v walker
geary v weatherspoon
Permission can be exceeded, making the visitor a trespasser
wheeler v copas
There is no definition of a premises, but the meaning is broad, covering land, buildings, and structures
s(1)3 states
it covers fix removable structures, as well as aircraft boats and vehicles
Occupiers or a current duty of care, to all visitors, according to what section
2(1)
There is a duty to do what?
What is reasonable to say that their visitor will be reasonably safe for the purposes of which they are permitted to be on the premises
staples v west dorset council
There is no obligation to one or protect against obvious risks
section 2(3) a states
An occupy must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
glasgow v taylor
A greater duty is owed to children by an occupier
phipps v rochester
The younger, the child, the more likely that the courts will decide that the primary responsibility for the care of the child rests with the parents
Occupied or trades of duty under section
2(3)b
nathan v roles
An occupier can expect the contractual guard against any special risks, which arise during their job
under s(4)(b) how are contractors seen
as occupiers in relation to the work, they carry out as seen in haseldine v daw
In regards to independent contractors, the occupier will not be held liable as long as
They have taken the reasonable steps to select a contractor and the check work is properly carried out. If it is highly tech technical, there is a little an occupy could be expected to do other than visual check on making sure something works.
is a warning enough 
A warning is not enough on its own. The warning must be sufficient to keep visitors reasonably safe warnings are not required, where risk is obvious.
tomlinson v congleton
Although a sign may show the defendant has taken reasonable care
when may a warning not be sufficient
children
s5 OLA 1957
there is one defence, voluntary assumption of risk or Volemti but the defence to apply the claimant must be aware of the risk and must voluntarily assume that risk
sawyers v harlow
if the claimant contributes the loss or injury the damages will be reduced by percentage
What is the remedy awarded?
Damages
what does OLA 1984 relate to
Focuses on the dangerous state of the premises. If someone is injured due to their own actions, rather than the dangerous state of the building, the claim will fail.
There are three preconditions which are
The premises must be dangerous. I’ll have reasonable ground, believe that there is danger.rhind v astbury
He knows or has reasonable grounds tonight someone will come into the vicinity of danger donoghue v stevenson
 the risk is one which it is reasonable to expect the defendant to offer some protection against keown v coventry nhs trust
The occupier has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the trespasser does not suffer injury as a result of danger. However, the duty owed is
Significantly less exacting than the duty, owed to lawful visitors
donoghue v folkestone
What factors will the court consider when deciding what is reasonable?
The likelihood of trespass,
extensive danger
how easy it would be to provide protection,
the cost and practicality,
whether the danger is an attraction platt v liverpool
platt v liverpool
is the danger an attraction?
ratcliffe v mcconnell
there is no duty to warn of obvious risks
