Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What is occupiers liability?
Occupiers liability is a specialised area of negligence which is spilt into two areas lawful visitors and trespassers. There is still a common duty of care and needs to be a breach of duty.
What is the statute for occupiers liability?
Occupiers liability act 1957( lawful visitors) and 1984( unlawful visitors. the Word occupier has been developed through case law such as Wheat v E Lacon and co.ltd
Explain what is meant by an occupier? and the importance of the case of Wheat v E lacon and co ltd
What did the case of Harris v birkenhead cooperation establish?
- This was the case of the four year old child that was injured in an empty house and
established that an occupier can be the person who takes control of the premises, t
Have the courts held that no one is in control of the premises? what case has been used to show this
Bailey v armes sometimes the decision on who is in control of the premises may be influenced by whose insurance policy covers the premises. however in the case of Bailey v Armes it was held that no one was in control of the premises, this means that the injured visitor does not get a claim.
Summarise the cases on occupier and what they have established.
- Wheat v E lacon and co ltd - there can be more than one occupier
- Harris v birkenhead cooperation- the occupier is the person who takes control of the premises
- Bailey v Armes - sometimes no one is in control of the premises which means there is no claim.
Explain what is meant by premise.
There is no clear statutory definition for premises however in S.1(3)(a) of the 1957 act there is a reference to a person having occupation or control over any “FIXED or moveable structure” including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. But the act may not apply where the defendant is an occupier of land. such as in revill v newbury- even though there was an occupier it is not relevant because the claim was purely negligent
Summarise the law on premises.
- The law on premises has references to s.1(3)a of the 1957 act as any “fixed or movable structure including any vessel , vehicle or aircraft”
- the act does not always apply to a defendant that is an occupier of land eg REVILL V NEWBURY- where he was acting in pure negligence
What part of the OCA is for lawful visitors ?
- THE 1957 occupiers and liability act s.2(1)
Explain the law on lawful visitors including the act
- ## Governed by the OLA - 1957 s.2(1) which states that the occupier owes a lawful visitor a common duty of care which can be separated by children, adults or workmen.
What is an lawful Adult visitor ?
An lawful adult visitor may include
- Invitee, person who has been invited to enter eg a friend
- Licensee , a person who has implied or expressed permission to be on the land for a particular period
- Statutory right, a meter reader , police officer exercising a warrant
- Contractual permission, a person who has brought an entry eg buying a ticket
What areas need to be clarified in relation to visitors
- people who exercise a lawful or public right of way are not covered by this act-(not liable) ex Mcgeown v NI Housing
- Implied permission eg a postal worker will be covered by this act
- Limitations on the premises eg a person who has permission for one part of the building but enter another become a trespasser eg CALGORTH not covered by this act
- A person could be a visitor in relation to one occupier and a trespasser in relation to another eg Feguson v welsh.
Explain what is meant by an adult visitor.
An adult visitor is owed the common duty of care, under s2(2) this means to take such care in all circumstances .. is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using premises completely safe for the visitor. = TO DO WHAT IS REASONABLE
eg in Laverton v Kiaspasha takeaway supreme - highlights the standard care expected of visitors
2. Dean and chapter of rochester cathedral v debell= Highlights that the duty of the occupier is to make the premises reasonably safe not completely safe.
What are the cases for an adult visitor?
- Laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme - Highlights the standard of care expected from visitors
- Dean and chapter of rochester Cathedral v Debell - Highlights that the occupier needs to make the premises reasonably safe not completely as tripping and slipping are everyday occurrences
- Cole v David Gilbert , the royal british legion and others- highlighted that pure accidents cannot claim
What is meant by occupiers liability for children , what is the duty of care?
- There is a common duty of care owed to children coming on to the premises but a special duty of care owed for child visitors. Under s2.(3) of the OLA 1957 the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
What is the standard of care for a child measured to?
Its subjectively measured according to the age of the child. The occupier should guard against “allurements or attraction “ which places a child visitor of risk at harm eg In the case of Jolly v london borough of sutton
Name the cases that surrounds the law of occupiers liability to children. Under s2(3) of the OLA 1957
- Glasgow corporation v Taylor ,- there was liability because the council where aware of the allurement to young children
- Phipps v Rochester corporation - There was no liability because the occupier was entitled to expect that parents would supervise unsafe areas. - Criticism because there is no age limit set allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if the damage or injury suffered is not foreseeable.
Jolley v london borough of sutton - There was liability because it should have been foreseen that children often put themselves in danger
What is the statute for occupiers liability regarding tradesmen ?
S.2(3)(B) OF THE 1957 OLA
- this act states that The effect of this provision is that an occupier will not be liable where tradesmen fail to guard against risks which they should know about or be expected to know about.
What cases are used for occupiers liability regarding tradesmen ?
Roles v Nathan- the occupiers were not liable because the claimants should be aware of the dangers of their own trade
Explain the law on Occupiers’ liability for torts of independent contractors
- A lawful visitor is owed a common duty of care while on the occupiers land but if the lawful visitor is injured by the negligent work of the trades man then the occupier has a defence and can transfer liability on to the tradesman under s2(4) of the OLA 1957
what statute is Occupiers’ liability for torts of independent contractors under?
- S(4) of the OLA 1957
What are the three elements that need to be satisfied for the liability regarding independent contactors
- It must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to the independent contactor- the more the work is complicated and specialist the occupier will need to hire a specialist eg Hasldine v daw and sons
- The contractor must be competent to carry out the task- the occupier is responsible for deciding if the contactor is competent eg Bottomley v Tordman cricket club
- The occupiers must check that the work has been properly done eg woodward v mayor of hastings - occupiers were liable as they failed to take the steps to check the work had been done
3.
What are some defences to occupiers liability?
- consent
- Contributory negligence
- Warning notices
What is consent ?
- This is a defence to occupiers liability that is a full defence where the defendant will not have to pay damages to the cliamant
What is mean by Contributory Negligence
- similar to negligence where the court will rule that if the claimant is partly responsible for the injuries occurred there will be a reduction in damages
What is meant by Warning notices?
This is a complete defence to a clam of occupiers liability which can be oral or written which is governed by S.(4) OF the occupiers liability act 1957 this states that a warning is ineffective unless “ in all circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe
eg in Westwood v post office
What will amount to a warning Notice?
- what is sufficent is decided on a case by case basis if the premises are dangerous or unusual the occupier will be required to have additional barriers eg Rae v MARRS where warning was not needed because the danger was obvious
- stapes v west dorset district council-
Explain liability for trespassers?
- Traditionally an occupier owed a tresspasser no duty of care other than not intentionally or recklessly inflicting injury the case of ADDIE V DUMBRECK illustrated this harsh rule
- The HOL used the 1966 practice statement to introduced a Duty of common humanity on occupiers towards trespassers eg in the case of British rail board v herrington
What is meant by the scope of Duty ?
- This means that a duty applies to people other than lawful visitors that are covered by the 1957 act under S(1)(a) OLA 1984
- this act provides compensation for personal injuries only
the occupier will owe a duty under S(1)3) IF - He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists;
- He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger
- The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the other some protection.
What statue governs scope of duty?
S(1)(a) OLA 1984 - DUTY APPLIES to people other than lawful visitors
What act states when a the occupier will owe a duty under the 1984 act ?
S(1)3) OLA 1984
- when the occupier is aware of the duty or has reasonable grounds to know it exists
- He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe there may be vicity of danger
- The risk is one against which he may offer some protection
What is the duty owed under s(1)4 ?
The duty owed under s(1)4 is to take care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that he the trespasser is not injured by any danger
Which cases involve adult trespassers?
- The courts have introduced the concept of obvious danger especially for adults. occupier will not be liable if the tresspasser is injured by an obvious danger eg in the case of RATCLIFF V Mc Connel and donoughe v folkestone properties
Name the cases that involved adult trespassers?
- RATCLIFF V Mc Connell ( occupier was not liable)
- Donougue v Folkestone properties
Explain cases involving child trespassers
- Similar to adults where the danger is obvious
eg in - Keown v Conventry healthcare Nhs trust- not liable
- Baldacciono v west wittering - the danger was obvious( occupier was not liable)
What statue allows consent?
S(1)6 of the 1984 act
What case can be used for the defence of warning notices ?
Westwood v post office
