Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Occupiers Liability > Flashcards

Occupiers Liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

General definition

A

Legal responsibility of an occupier for damage caused by the state of the premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Two statutes

A

Occupiers Liability Act 1957- lawful visitors

1984- unlawful visitors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Common element 1 (apply to both Acts)

Wheat v Lacon

A

Occupier is anyone with enough control over the premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Common element 2- S1(3)(a)

1957 Act

A

Premises are land, and buildings, as well as a fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Element 3 (1957)- ‘lawful visitor’

A

Invitees- guests (family,friends)
Licensees- express or implied permission to be on premises for time/purpose (trades people, posting leaflets, milkman)
Contractual- paid/work (ticket for concert)
Statutory rights- (firefighter, police officer)
DOES NOT INCLUDE USING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q 
Element 4 (1957) when duty owed 
S2(1)
A

An occupier of premises owed the same duty of common duty of care to all lawful visitors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Element 5 (1957) what is the duty
S(2)(2)
Debell

A

Take reasonable care to ensure they are reasonable safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Elements to take into account if D has taken reasonable care

A

Size of risk (Miller v Jackson)
Seriousness of potential harm (Paris v SBC)
Practicability of precautions (Paris v SBC)
Benefit outweighs cost (Watt v HCC)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Different type of duty

S2(3)(a)

A

An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and so the premises must be reasonable safe for a child of that age (Jolley v Sutton)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

A

D is entitled to presume parents will not let young children go to clearly unsafe places unaccompanied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Different type of duty

S2(3)(b)

A

Tradesperson should appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it (Roles v Nathan)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q 
Exclusion clauses (1957)
S2(1)
A

Complete defence:
A residential occupier may exclude liability via a sign/ticket/term in a contract
Children must be able to understand sign
S65 Consumer Rights Act 2015 says a business cannot exclude liability with a sign for personal injury or death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Warning sign S2(4)(a) 1957

A

Warning ‘in all circumstances would enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’
Rae v Mars

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Exclusion S2(4)(b) 1957

A

Occupier is not at fault for the work of an independent contractor if:

  • reasonable for occupier to give work to an independent contractor
  • D made sure the contractor hired is competent
  • occupier must check work has been done properly
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Exclusion independent contractors

1. Reasonable for occupier to give work to an independent contractor

A

Haseldine v Daw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Exclusion independent contractors

2. Contractor hired is competent to carry out task

A

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

17
Q

Exclusion independent contractors

3. Occupier must check the work has been done properly

A

Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

18
Q

Remedies 1957

A

Pay damages for death or personal injuries or property damage

19
Q

S1(1)(a) OLA 1984

A

Applies to unlawful visitors for injury caused by dangerous premises (danger must come from state of premises not trespasser’s actions)

20
Q

1984 S1(1)(a) defining unlawful visitors

A

Someone who does not have permission to be where they are or do what they are doing

21
Q

1984 Duty only applies if

A

S1(3)(a) occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
S1(3)(b) occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger or that he may come in to the vicinity of the danger
S1(3)(c) the risk is one against which he may be expected to offer the other some protection

22
Q

S1(3)(a) 1984

A

Aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to know it exists

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

23
Q

S1(3)(b) 1984

A

D knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into vicinity of the danger (occupier will not be liable if he had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser)
Higgs v Foster

24
Q

S1(3)(c) 1984

A

Risk is one against which he may be expected to offer the other some protection (occupier will not be liable if the danger is obvious)
Tomlinson v Congleton borough council

25
Q

S1(4) 1984

A

D had to take such care as is reasonable in circumstances to see he is not injured by reason of the danger

26
Q

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

A

Same rules apply to children as trespassers

27
Q

S1(5) 1984/ Westwood v Post Office

A

Taken reasonable steps in circumstances to give warning of the danger, or to discourage trespassers from taking the risk

28
Q

S1(8) 1984

A

Ordered to pay damages for death/personal injury only

29
Q

Evaluation: lack of statutory definitions

A

OLA does not define terms so judges have to interpret (Wheat v Lacon & S1(3)(a)
✅- allows judges to be flexible when making decision
- bad decisons not due to narrow wording
- allows law to change rather than time locked
❎ - definitions changing can create uncertainty
- hard for people to prepare for trials
- definitions may go against what P intend

30
Q

Evaluation: objective vs subjective tests

A

Lawful visitors always owe duty- does not matter if D knew of danger that C is in- unlawful is subjective as D must know of danger and trespasser
✅- ensures protection for all lawful visitors
- only protects trespassers in limited circumstances which creates justice
❎- having subjective tests for trespassers is inconsistent with other torts (negligence)
- each case decided on facts creates uncertainty

31
Q

Evaluation: protecting children

A

OLA 57 protects children vs 84 offers no extra protection (Jolley v Sutton vs Keown v Coventry NHS Trust)
✅- children more likely to be harmed so law is fair and creates justice
❎- children more likely to get hurt and more likely to trespass innocently
- more likely to be injured and less likely to be protected

32
Q

Evaluation: making C more responsible

A

Trespassers have to avoid obvious risks (Tomlinson v Congleton BC)
✅ ensured occupiers dont carry unusual responsibility
Avoids unneccassary cases which saves P’s time
❎ avoids purpose of making D liable for damage caused by their land so now creates uncertainty

Law (42 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions