Occupiers Liability

Question 1

What is occupiers liability?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What is the statute for occupiers liability?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Explain what is meant by an occupier? and the importance of the case of Wheat v E lacon and co ltd

Question 4

What did the case of Harris v birkenhead cooperation establish?

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

Have the courts held that no one is in control of the premises? what case has been used to show this

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Summarise the cases on occupier and what they have established.

Answer 6

• 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.

Question 7

Explain what is meant by premise.

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Summarise the law on premises.

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

What part of the OCA is for lawful visitors ?

Answer 9

• THE 1957 occupiers and liability act s.2(1)

Question 10

Explain the law on lawful visitors including the act

Answer 10

• ## 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.

Question 11

What is an lawful Adult visitor ?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

What areas need to be clarified in relation to visitors

Answer 12

1. people who exercise a lawful or public right of way are not covered by this act-(not liable) ex Mcgeown v NI Housing
2. Implied permission eg a postal worker will be covered by this act
3. 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
4. A person could be a visitor in relation to one occupier and a trespasser in relation to another eg Feguson v welsh.

Question 13

Explain what is meant by an adult visitor.

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

What are the cases for an adult visitor?

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

What is meant by occupiers liability for children , what is the duty of care?

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

What is the standard of care for a child measured to?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Name the cases that surrounds the law of occupiers liability to children. Under s2(3) of the OLA 1957

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

What is the statute for occupiers liability regarding tradesmen ?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

What cases are used for occupiers liability regarding tradesmen ?

Answer 19

Roles v Nathan- the occupiers were not liable because the claimants should be aware of the dangers of their own trade

Question 20

Explain the law on Occupiers’ liability for torts of independent contractors

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

what statute is Occupiers’ liability for torts of independent contractors under?

Answer 21

• S(4) of the OLA 1957

Question 22

What are the three elements that need to be satisfied for the liability regarding independent contactors

Answer 22

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.

Question 23

What are some defences to occupiers liability?

Answer 23

• consent
• Contributory negligence
• Warning notices

Question 24

What is consent ?

Answer 24

• This is a defence to occupiers liability that is a full defence where the defendant will not have to pay damages to the cliamant

Question 25

What is mean by Contributory Negligence

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

What is meant by Warning notices?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

What will amount to a warning Notice?

Answer 27

• 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-

Question 28

Explain liability for trespassers?

Answer 28

• 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

Question 29

What is meant by the scope of Duty ?

Answer 29

• 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.

Question 30

What statue governs scope of duty?

Answer 30

S(1)(a) OLA 1984 - DUTY APPLIES to people other than lawful visitors

Question 31

What act states when a the occupier will owe a duty under the 1984 act ?

Answer 31

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

Question 32

What is the duty owed under s(1)4 ?

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Which cases involve adult trespassers?

Answer 33

• 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

Question 34

Name the cases that involved adult trespassers?

Answer 34

• RATCLIFF V Mc Connell ( occupier was not liable)

- Donougue v Folkestone properties

Question 35

Explain cases involving child trespassers

Answer 35

• 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)

Question 36

What statue allows consent?

Answer 36

S(1)6 of the 1984 act

Question 37

What case can be used for the defence of warning notices ?

Answer 37

Westwood v post office