Occupiers 84 Flashcards
Define
Traditionally an occupier did not or a duty of care to a trespasser, this was applied and added the Dumbreck where a child was killed by falling through offence. Herrington v BRB Over ruled and stated that duty of care can be owed to child tress passes
Section 1.1 (A)
The duty 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 by then”
Section 1 (three) (B)
Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity or danger or they may come into danger
Section 1 (three) (C)
The risk is one he or she may be expected to offer the other person some protection
Section 1 (four)
Take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to say that he is not injured by the reason of the danger
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Claimant dived into an empty swimming pool
No hidden danger not required to warn of obvious dangers
Donoghue v Folkestone properties
C injured when diving in sea
The occupier did not or duty as they wouldn’t expect someone to be trespassing at that time of the year
Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council
There had to be danger due to the state of the premises
Defendant should have to guard against one but the trespasser chose to run
The council would not have breached if it was a lawful visitor as it is not Reasonable to spend a lot of money
Higgs v foster
The police entered the occupiers premises and was injured, he was judged as a trespasser. They had no reason to expect a trespasser so was not liable
Rhind v astbury water park
C ignored signs and was injured in the lake
“The risk is one against which he may be expected to offer the other some protection”
Keown v Coventry health care
Claimant fell out of a fire door but he knew what he was doing and appreciate the danger
Baldacchino v west wittering
C jumped in tide
Obvious danger
