Occupiers Liability Flashcards
Basic knowledge - where does it come from and what does it involve?
- Comes from statute & common law
- Involves the liability of an occupier to both visitors and persons other than visitors
MAIN ACT
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - for visitors
Occupier definition
person who has control of land or buildings
person who has possession
may be more than 1 occupier (wheat v Lacon)
ACT DOES NOT DEFINE WHO IS THE OCCUPIER - STATES THAT THE RULES OF COMMON LAW SHOULD APPLY s1(2)
Premises definition
land or buildings which are occupied includes structures (grandstands) includes moving structures (vehicles - wheeler v copas)
What is the test that should be applied?
occupational control
control = occupier and owe DoC
Wheat v Lacon (1996) - categories
- Tenants ( where the landlord does not have access)
- Landlords (who still retain some access to the property while be occupier of those areas - eg : apartment building lift
- Landlords who grant a license for their property (eg - pub)
- Owner of land/building will be occupier where contractors are employed
Wheat v Lacon (1996) - categories
1.Tenants ( where the landlord does not have access)
2.Landlords (who still retain some access to the property while be occupier of those areas - eg : apartment building lift
3.Landlords who grant a license for their property (eg - pub)
4. Owner of land/building will be occupier where contractors are employed
- sometimes contractor will be occupier (while building is being
built)
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)
- infant fell out of 2nd floor window
- 1st instance - in favour of plaintiff - corp appealed
- issue = establish at which point the local authority and corporation become the occupier of the property
- local authority = occupier
- after service of notice of entry is serves to a tenant. - relevant authority becomes legal occupier
LAWFUL VISITORS
Anyone who is present in the premises by:
- occupiers invitation
- occupiers express/implied permission
- exercise of legal right (emergency services/meter reader)
Expressed permission
permission that is given specifically, verbally or written
Implied permission
not expressly granted by a person, rather implicitly granted by a persons actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (entrance into a pub/restaurant)
Visitors according to s1(2)
- Invited people - friends/workmen
- Licensees such as customers
- Those entering under contractual agreement
- Those not requiring permission due to legal rights - police/meter readers
Lowrey v Walker (1911)
- owner of a savage hose places into a field where members of public cross on their way to railway
- plaintiff = attacked by horse
- landowner had never stopped trespassers
- D = liable - plaintiff did not have express permission
- permission implied due to repeated trespass
COMMON DUTY OF CARE
section 2 occupiers liability act 1957 - imposes a duty of case owed to lawful visitors
section 2 occupiers liability act 1957
- An occupier of premises owes the same duty to all their visitors …. amend this duty to any visitor by agreement
- take reasonable care in all circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe when using the premises for the purpose of which they are invited
s2(2) occupiers liability act 1957
reasonable care can be achieved -
- By making the premises reasonably safe
- Giving effective warnings
Staples v West Dorset Council
plaintiff fell down algae covered slope
knew the algae was there and would make him fall
held - warning sign would not have informed plaintiff of new infro
what are the guidelines for?
to advise courts of what to do when case involves persons with special characteristics
s2(3) (a)
CHILDREN
CHILDREN - guidelines
- special duty of care
- expect children to be less careful that adults (warning for adults may not be sufficient for children )
- occupier may be liable if they fail to protect children from hidden dangers or allurements - Glasgow corporation v Taylor
- occupier entitled to assume that very small children will be accompanied by adult - Phipps v Rochester corporation
Glasgow corporation v Taylor
Child are poisonous berries & died
d = liable (did nothing to prevent the child from getting the berries)
Phipps v Rochester corporation
child fell in trench & broke leg
d= not liable - very small children will be accompanied
s2(3) (b)
SPECIAL SKILL
SPECIAL SKILL - guidelines
- occupier can expect a person in the exercise of his calling, to appreciate and guard any special risks that may occur due to Job
Roles v Nathon
Roles v Nathan
- killed by carbon monoxide coming from sweep hole - they were sealing
- warned about danger
- held - warnings enough to make the sweeps reasonable safe
- not liable
s2(4)(a)
WARNINGS
WARNINGS - guidelines
warning sign not enough to remove liability
- unless in all circumstances it ensured the visitor was reasonable safe - Roles v Nathan - warnings enough - Darby v National trust - obvious risk = no duty to warn - children - warnings must be low and clear --- if not they need to be clear for adults
s2(4)(b)
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR - guidelines
- occupier not liable for injuries cause to visitors by independent contractor
- o’connor v swan & Edgar - occupier must take reasonable care in selecting a suitable contractor
- Bottomley v Todmordon Cricket club
o’connor v swan & Edgar
- plaintiff visitor working as a demonstrator
- ceiling fell on her
- sued occupier and plasterer
- plasterer = liable
Bottomley v Todmordon Cricket club
- pyrotechnic display found on google
- cricket club did not check if qualified
