OCCUPIERS ABILITY 1957

Question 1

IN OLA LIABILITY WILL ONLY BE IMPOSED IF…

Answer 1

INJURY OR DAMAGE IS THE RESULT OF THE CONDITION OF THE LAND OR DANGEROUS CONDUCT THAT IS A CONTINUING SOURCE OF DANGER

Question 2

WHO IS AN OCCUPIER?

Answer 2

Lord Denning defined it in (WHEAT V LACON) someone who has control over who can come in and out of said premises.

DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION
(HARRIS V BIRKENHEAD)

Question 3

OCCUPIERS OF PREMISES

Answer 3

DEFINED IN (S1(3)) OLA 57 DEFINED AS INCL ANY FIXED OR MOVABLE STRUCTURE.

A LIFT (HASELDINE V DAW)
A PARK
(TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL)

Question 4

VISITORS ARE PROTECTED BY OLA 57

Answer 4

SOMEONE WHO HAS EXPRESS OR IMPLIED PERMISSION FROM THE OCCUPIER TO ENTER THE PREMISES
(HORTON V JACKSON)

Question 5

DUTY OF CARE OWED

Answer 5

(S2(1))OLA 57
IF DUTY IS BREACHED CLAIMANT CAN BRING AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BUT NOT FOR PURE ECONOMIC LOSS

Question 6

STANDARD OF CARE OWED

Answer 6

(S2(2))
COMMON DUTY OF CARE AND IT REQUIRES THE OCCUPIERS TO MAKE THE VISITOR REASONABLY SAFE BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY SAFE
(WOOD V SMITH AND WESTERN RESTAURANTS)

Question 7

THE LAW RELATING TO CHILD VISITORS

Answer 7

(S2(3a)) OLA 57
the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults … premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
(JULLEY V SUTTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL)

Question 8

OCCUPIERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO ASSUME THAT VERY YOUNG CHILDREN WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY SOMEONE SUPERVISING THEM. THIS REDUCES THE DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED BY THE OCCUPIER

Answer 8

(PHIPPS V ROCHESTER)

Question 9

PEOPLE CARRYING OUT A TRADE OR CALLING

Answer 9

(S2(3b)) OLA 57
sets out the law relating to someone who is exercising their common calling on occupiers’ property
(ROLES V NATHAN)

Question 10

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

Answer 10

(s2(4b))

…occupier will not be liable for damage caused to a visitor due to the faulty execution of work by an independent contractor if
-IT WAS REASONABLE TO ENTRUST THE WORK TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
-OCCUPIER HAD TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO SEE THAT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS COMPETENT
-OCCUPIER HAD TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO SEE THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN DONE PROPERLY

Question 11

JOB IS NOT TECHNICAL FOR THE OCCUPIER TO CHECK

Answer 11

(WOODWARD V MAYOR OF HASTINGS)

Question 12

TECHNICAL JOB COULD NOT BE CHECKED BY OCCUPIER

Answer 12

(HASELDINE V DAW)

Question 13

GUIDELINES FOR WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM AN OCCUPIER REGARDING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INSURANCE WERE LAID OUT IN …

…BUT NOT FOLLOWED IN

Answer 13

(GWILLIAM V WEST HERTFORDSHIRE NHS TRUST)

(BOTTOMLEY V CRICKET CLUB)

Question 14

EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OLA 1957

Answer 14

(S2(1)) OLA 57
DUTY OF CARE CAN BE EXTENDED, RESTRICTED, MODIFIED OR EXCLUDED

UCTA 77
APPLIES IF THE PREMISES IS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES

Question 15

OCCUPIER CANNOT EXCLUDE LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE…

…IN THE CASE OF… THERE WAS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR DEATH

Answer 15

(WHITE V BLACKMORE)

Question 16

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Answer 16

Law Reform (contributory negligence) Act 45
if the visitor fails to take reasonable care for their own safety and is a cause of the harm suffered amount of damages will be reduced

Question 17

WARNINGS

Answer 17

(S2(4a))
visitor is given sufficient warning of a danger to make them reasonably safe, occupier will not be liable for any damage that the claimant suffers because of danger.
positioning, size and wording are vital. and warning must refer to the precise risk or danger being faced.

Question 18

DANGER IS SO OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR A WARNING SIGN

Answer 18

(COTTON V DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIL )

Question 18

A WARNING COULD BE USELESS IN SOME INSTANCES

Answer 18

(RAE V MARS)

Question 19

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

Answer 19

(S2(5))
COMMON DUTY OF CARE DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON AN OCCUPIER ANY OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE IF THE RISK OF HARM HAS BEEN WILLINGLY ACCEPTED BY THE VISITOR.