occupiers liability Flashcards
what two acts have established occupiers liability?
- 1957 act: governs liability of lawful vistors and imposes a duty of care on occupiers to take of others who come on their land (milk man post man
-1984 act: governs liability to trespassers occupiers owe a duty of care to trespassers
what terminology is used in the 1957 act?
- lawful visitors: someone who has a lawful purpose or legitimate reason for being on land (expresses or implied permission)
- occupier:the person who has day to day control of the land. could be owner of a house or a renter)
this ecompasses parks, beachers and woodlands
-land: defintion is extended to things on the land
lolley v london borough of sutton:
- boat was left on a council estates land and the council knew about it but didnt remove
- somone on estate tried to prop it up to fix it and crushes his legs
- as the council are occupiers of the land they had a resposibility to lolley to remove the item as it was forseeable somone would try to use it and could get hurt
duty of care is the 1957 act
- section 2.2
- occupiers have a duty of care towards visitors to ensure they are reasonably safe. its about keeping the visitor not the premisies safe
- this can be done by putting signs up ect
degree of care 1957 act
section 3:
when it comes to children you need to take more care of them as they dont have the awarness of dangers that adults do
have tolimit allurments or attractions that could cause chilren harm
case: glasgow corporation v taylor
warning signs 1957 act
section 4:
signs have to be clear and allow visitors to stay reasonably safe to prevent harm
the law at the moment states however there isnt any obligation to warn of obvious risk
case: cotton v derbyshier
risks willingly accepted by the visitor:
section 5
people make a choice and if it goes wrong you cant blame the occupier
case: tomlinson v cangleton borough council
what does the 1984 act state
’ occupier has a duty to persons totake such care as is reasonable in the cricumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer any injury on the premesis’
what are the conditions of liability in the 1984 case?
occupiers only liable if:
1) occupier knew of danger
2) occupier knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser would be in the vicinity
3) the expected danger is one that the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser protected from the harm (sign or boundary)
key case of 1984 act
scott v associated british ports
what can be claimed under both acts?
1957: death, personal injury and any other damage
1984: death and personal injury only
‘any other injury’
can be pain or suffering, costs of going to and from the hospital and damage to items like car or phone
