occupiers liability Flashcards
what are the two acts for occupiers liability and what do they involve
-occupiers liability act 1957, concerns duty of are to lawful visitors
occupier liability act 1984- concerns a duty of care to unlawful trespassers
give a case for what is meant by the term ‘occupier’
Wheat- D was the manager of a pub that was given rights to rent out rooms even though he did not own the pub. A guest fell and died on the stairs due it being unlit. The house of lords said that there could be more than one occupier under the act.
what are the ‘premises’ stated to be in what act.
the 1957 act references a person having occupation or control of a ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vehicle, vessel or aircraft’
what four things count as a lawful adult visitor (CILS)
- contractual permission, eg having tickets to enter an event
- invitees, invited to enter with express permission
- licensees- express or implied permission to be on the land for a particular period
- statutory right of entry, eg police exercising a warrant
what is the key word regarding safety in the 1957 act
‘reasonably safe’
what is the case for ‘reasonable safe’
Laverton, a takeaway shop had taken precautions for the wet weather and slippy floor. the COA held that customers can be reasonable safe if they take reasonable care for their own safety, the shop was not liable.
what is the case that proved a minor defect will not make a visitor unsafe
Debell, C was injured when he tripped and fell over a small piece of protruding concrete outside rochester cathedral. COA held that tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences- The obligation is to make the land safe and not to guarantee the visitors’ safety. The risk is only foreseeable where there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as requiring action.
what is the case for obvious risk
Darby, man drowned in national park pond that he had regularly swam in before. NT was not liable, there was no need to warn of a clearly obvious risk.
which section of the 1957 act outlines the rules for children and what are they
section 2, ‘the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’, the occupier should guard against any kind of ‘allurement’ that places a child at risk
what is a case for ‘allurement’ children in occupiers liability
taylor, a child ate some poisonous berries in a garden and died. the courts said that the occupier should have expected that a young child might be attracted to the berries so they were liable
what is a crucial factor when considering children for occupiers liability
age
what is a case when the courts took a stance of parental supervision
phipps, 5 year old child fell in a ditch that had been dug out by the defendant in an area that the child often played. D was not liable because the parents should have had the child under proper control.
what is a case for tradesman
Roles, two chimney sweepers died after inhaling carbon monoxide. the sweeps knew of the danger so the occupiers of the property could not be liable.
what are the rules around independent contractors
under s.2(4) of the 1957 act occupiers can pass liability down onto the workman give that three requirements are satisfied
what are the three requirements that must be satisfied for an occupier to pass liability to a workman and what are the cases for each
1) reasonable for the occupier to have given work to the independent contractor
2) the hired contractor must be competent to do the work
3) the occupier must check the work has been properly done
1) Haseldine, the occupier could not be liable because fixing a lift was an extremely specialised activity
2) bottomley, stunt team could not be liable for firework display gone wrong because they had no insurance
3) woodward the occupiers were held liable when a child was injured on school steps that were negligently left icy by workers. The danger should have been obvious to occupiers.
