Occupiers Liabilit 1957 Flashcards
what case defines an occupier
Wheat v Lacon - ‘whenever a person who has sufficient degreee of control over a premises that he ought to have realised that any failure of his part may result in injury then he is the occupier’.
Harris v Birkenhead corporation
An occupier can be defined as any person who has control over the property- no physical occupation is required to incur liability.
What case shows that there can sometimes be no occupier
Bailey v Armes
What are the different types of lawful visitors
- invitees
- licensees
- contractual permission
- statutory authority
What does s2(2) state about the DOC required by the occupier to lawful visitors
‘Take such are as in all circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe when using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited’
Laverton v Kiapasha
D’s had installed non-slip tiles despite the C still slipping however due to the non-slip tiles they had installed they were not found liable as they had taken reasonable care to prevent injury- aligning with S2(2)
Rochester Cathedral v Debell
C slipped over a small lump in the concrete
Court held that:
- slipping and falling are everyday occurrences and so liability was not found
Cole v Davis- Gilbert
(Relation to time)
C has tripped over a hole made years ago, D not found liable as the injury occurred to long after the hole was created
What is the duty an occupier owes to children
‘Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
What case demonstrates the DOC for younger children
Glasgow v Taylor- 7 year old ate poisoned berries, found that the council owed a DOC to the parents and the child which was breached
Phipps v Rochester corporation
2 children were playing on land owned by the council one fell down a ditch and was injured. The council weren’t found liable as the parents shouldn’t have allowed their children to play in areas where danger is near
Jolley v London borough of Sutton (older children)
An abandoned boat was left on the councils land for 2 years. The children decided they were going to fix it but one was then seriously injured.
The boat acted as an obvious allurement but the acts of the children were unforseeable
What does S2(3)b state surrounding the duty owed to trades people
Occupier owes the common DOC however an occupier can expect the tradesman to appreciate and guard against any special risks. An occupier would not be liable for the failures of trades men if they followed the protocol
What must an occupier do to detract liability from themselves when an independent tradesman has worked on their premises
An occupier must ensure that the in all circumstance took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the work carried out was properly done and that the contractor was competent
Roles v Nathan
Occupier has warned 2 chimney sweeps of the potential danger and so wasn’t found liable
The more complicated the work the more need for a specialist contractor
Haseldine v daw and son - c was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of the shaft
O was not found guilty as the work was extremely complicated and so was correct in hiring a specialist
The contractor must be competent to carry out the work
Bottomley - O hired a stunt team to complete a fireworks show one of the team hired was injured and O was found guilty as they should’ve hired a specialist
The occupier must check the work has properly been done
Woodward v The mayor of Hastings - hired someone to clear the stairs after cold weather a child was injured as OC didn’t take reasonable steps to ensure the work was done properly
What are the defences for OL
Contributory negligence - partial defence: C has contributed to their injuries
Consent- full defence- C has consented to the actions that caused the damage
Warning signs - complete defence
Exclusion clauses-
Evaluation of occupiers liability (fault based system)
costs- costs of hiring lawyers, eye witness accounts, evidence
Delays - delays due to the use of lawyers and attaining this evidence. also due to the involvement of insurance companies. In addition if a case goes to court this can lead to even further delays
Evaluation of OLA (children)
Section 2 (3) states that an occupier should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and therefore the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. Glasgow corp v Taylor This can be viewed as a positive of the law as it accurately takes into account children lack of thought and appreciation of potential risk However in cases where the child is very young the courts are unlikely to find liability as these children should not be left alone and instead in the company of an adult - reflects society's views Phipps v rochester
