Occupiers liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is occupiers liability

A

Occupiers’ liability is a branch of negligence. While
negligence is a common law tort created by judges,
occupiers’ liability has been created by statute.

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

What are the two branches of occupiers liability

A

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 provides that an
occupier of premises owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors, and if that duty is breached and the visitor
is injured he is entitled to receive compensation.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out a
similar rule for trespassers who are injured on the
occupier’s property.

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

What are two cases that define what occupiers are in different scenarios

A

Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd (1966)
Or
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)

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

Describe the case of Wheat v E Lacon & Co

A

In this case the manager of a pub was given the right
to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though
he had no ownership rights in the premises. A paying
guest fell on an unlit staircase and died. The House
of Lords decided that both the manager and his
employers could be occupiers under the Act so there
could be more than one occupier of the premises.

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

Describe the case of Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

A

A four-year-old child was injured in an empty house
The local council had served a compulsory purchase
order on the house but they had not boarded it up or
made it secure as they had not yet taken possession.
It was decided they were in occupation as they were
effectively in control of the premises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

No occupiers ?

A

sometimes, the courts will find that no one
is in control of the premises leaving the injured visitor
with no claim.
For example in
Bailey v Armes (1999)
The defendants lived in a flat above a supermarket.
They allowed their son to play on the flat roof above
their flat but forbade him to take anyone else there.
The supermarket knew nothing of the use of the
roof. The boy took his friend onto the roof and he
was injured when he fell from the roof. The Court of
Appeal decided that neither the supermarket nor
the defendants were occupiers as they did not have
sufficient control over the roof.

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

Premises

A

There is no full statutory definition of premises except
in s 1(3) a) of the 1957 Act where there is reference to
a person having occupation or control of any ‘fixed or
moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and
aircraft’
Besides the obvious such as houses, offices,
buildings and land, premises has also been held to
include:
a ship in dry dock
a vehicle
a lift and even
a ladder.

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

24.3 Lawful visitors and the
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Who are lawful adult visitors

A
  • invitees - persons who have been invited to enter
    and who have express permission to be there
    licensees - persons who may have express or
    implied permission to be on the land for a particular
    period
    those with contractual permission - for example, a
    person who has bought an entry ticket for an event
    those given a statutory right of entry such as
    meter readers and a police constable exercising a
    warrant.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly