Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What is it regarding?
Occupiers Liability concerns the liability of an ‘occupier’ of land for the claimant’s injury, damage or loss suffered caused by the state of the occupier’s premises.
What two statutes govern Occupiers Liability?
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
Where does basic liability arise?
The basic liability arises from the loss or injury caused by the ‘state of the premises.’
Where could loss or damages not relating to the ‘state of the premises’ be claimed under?
Loss or damage arising other than because of the state of the premises should be claimed under the general rules of negligence if possibly.
Give a case to explain this ‘state of the premises’ concept.
Ogwo v Taylor [1987] – There was no liability under the Act when a fireman was injured in a fire on the defendant’s premises. The fire did not result from the state of the premises, so the liability was in negligence.
Does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 define an occupier?
No.
What does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 say about a occupier?
Under Section 1(2) it merely states that the rules apply ‘in consequence of a person’s occupation or control of premises…’
Therefore, where did the test for an occupier come from? What does it say?
Common law-An occupier is a person who is in control of the premises at the time the incident occurred – Wheat v E Lacon.
Can there be more than one occupier?
Can be more than one occupier at any time – Collier v Anglian Water Authority.
Does an occupier need to be in full occupation of the property?
The occupier does not need to be in full occupation of the property as long as they are in control of the premises at the time the incident occurs – Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
What does Section 1(3)(a) of the OLA 1957 define a premises as?
Section 1(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 defines premises as a fixed or moveable structure, including ‘any vessel, vehicle and aircraft…’
Lift?
Haseldine v Daw
Ship in a dry dock?
London Graving Dock v Horton
Ladder?
Wheeler v Copas
Vehicles?
Hartwell v Grayson
What is the issue with that Statutory definition?
This is very vague and does not give a full meaning as to the term premises.
What does case law provide for premises?
Wide definition to allow for all types of premises to be considered.
What section of the OLA 1957 states the duty of care for lawful visitors?
Section 2(1) “…an occupier owes the same duty, the common duty of care, to all his visitors except insofar as he is free to do and does extend, restrict modify or exclude his duty to any visitors by agreement or otherwise.”
What is the standard of care for lawful visitors?
The standard of care expected of an occupier is the same as that in an ordinary claim in Negligence, i.e. an occupier must reach the standard of the reasonable occupier and will, therefore, only be liable if at fault (negligence).
Thus, the occupier is merely obliged to guard against what would be foreseeable.
Given the similarity with a claim in negligence, will a court consider similar factors when deciding whether the common duty of care has been breached.
Yes.
Where nature of the duty contained?
The nature of the duty is contained under S. 2(2) OLA 1957. The occupier will need to…
“…take such care as in all the circumstances what is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited…to be there…”
When does the duty in OLA 57 only apply?
The duty in the 1957 Act only applies if the visitor is carrying out activities that are authorized within the terms of the visit.
the claimant is only protected if they are on the premises for the purpose of their visit.
If the visitor strays from their authorized terms of visit where might they be protected?
So, if a visitor strays he may lose protection under the 1957, although the 1984 Act may still apply.
Is the duty to keep the visitors safe or maintain safe premises?
Give a case example.
The duty is to keep the visitor safe, not necessarily to maintain safe premises.
If the latter were the case it would make industry unworkable.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)
Explain lawful visitors and accidents and give a case example.
The duty, however, does not extend to liability for pure accident and a duty in respect of a specific risk cannot last indefinitely where there could be other cases of damage.
Cole v Davies-Gilbert & The Royal British Legion [2007]
Maypole-2 years after fete, someone else had opened the hole-stranger, pure accident.
Name the types of lawful vistors.
A person who has permission to be on the premises. Invitee Licensee Right conferred in law. Contractual right.
Who is a invitee?
Invitee has expressed permission from the occupier to access the premises for a particular purpose, e.g. invite a friend round to have dinner.
Who is a licensee?
Licensee - can have an expressed licence or implied licence, e.g. implied licence to go to a supermarket to do your shopping.
What happens if a lawful visitor exceeds the permission granted?
If the visitor acts beyond the permission granted to them they will no longer be a lawful visitor and will not be protected under the OLA 1957.
If the visitor exceeds the purpose of their visit they will become trespassers.
Is there a duty owed to trespassers under the OLA 57? Where might they be entitled to protection?
No duty is owed to trespassers under the 1957 Act.
May be entitled to protection under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 .
What is the rule for children and what section is to governed by?
Under S. 2(3)(a) the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and thus the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of the relevant age.
Therefore, for children a higher duty of care will be owed, but this duty will be measured subjectively based on the child’s age and other relevant factors.
Give a case for special victors-children.
Moloney v Lambeth LBC (1966) - gap railings, adult not able to fit.
Children- special visitors- explain appreciating risks and allurement. Give a case example.
Do children appreciate risks like adults?
Are they attracted to danger?
What should occupiers do regarding allurement?
Similarly, children are unlikely to appreciate the risks that adults would and might even be attracted to the danger.
Occupiers should guard against any kind of allurement which places a child visitor at risk of harm.
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922]
Is the existence of allurement on its own sufficient ground for liability? Give a case example.
No. Liddle v Yorkshire (North Riding) County Council [1944]
What does the damage or injury suffered have to be for a child? Give a case example.
The damage or injury suffered by the child must also be foreseeable.
Even if the allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if the damage or injury is not foreseeable.
Jolley v Sutton [2000].
What will the courts sometimes take the view for young children and what does this mean? Give a case example.
any case, the courts will sometimes take the view that very young children should be under the supervision of a parent or other adult.
In this case the occupier might find that he or she is relieved of liability.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955]
If a child is injured because of the occupier’s negligence and partly due to their guardian’s negligence what can happen?
Both the occupier and the guardian could be jointly liable.
