Occupiers liability Flashcards
What is the intro to OL 1957 and 1984
OL is the rule that occupiers may be liable if injury occurs on their land and the occupier has not taken proper care.
It’s a branch of negligence however it’s been created by statue.
What is the difference between OL 1957 and 1984
1957 - The occupier of the premises owes a doc to lawful visitors and if that duty is breached and the visitor is injured the C is entitled to recover compensation.
1984 - Trespassers have similar rights when injured on the occupiers land and is only for injury.
Occupiers (Defendant): is there a definition, who is the occupier and we’re is the test found?
What are the cases?
There is no statutory definition of occupier
It’s usually the owner or tenant of the premises
The test for deciding whether a person is the occupier is found in case law
Wheat V E.Lacon & Co Ltd held - the HOL decided that both the manager and his employers could be occupiers under the Act so there could be more than one occupier of the land.
Harris V Birkenhead corporation - established the person who is in control of the premises will be considered the occupiers. Who is in control may be influenced by whose insurance policy covers the premises and who os able to meet the claim.
In Bailey V Armes - The courts may find no one in control this will leave the injured visitor without a claim
Premises: is there a definition if so what’s the section number?
There is no statutory definition of premises however S.1(3)(a) of the OL act 1957 references ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft.
This has included obvious places like houses, offices, buildings and land.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
What the 3 test are there to decide an occupiers liability?
Is D an occupier of the premises
Is the claimant a visitor
Has the D breached his duty by failing to keep the C safe for the purpose of their visit.
If yes the D is liable under OL act 1957
Who do occupiers owe a DOC to and what section number does it fall under ?
Adults
Children
Traders
Independent contractors
S.2(1) - A lawful visitor is owed a doc
S.(2) - The occupier must keep the visitors reasonably safe for the purpose for which he was invited to be there.
Lawful Visitors Adults include:
Invitees - those with express permission to be there eg family
Licensees - Those with permission for a particular reason eg postman
Contractual permission - Those with a ticket for an event eg milkman
Statutory permission - those who have permission under acts of P eg police exercising a warrant
What are the cases for lawful adult visitors?
🥡✝️
Laverton V kiapasha Takeaway Supreme held - the Court of Appeal decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure that customers were safe. They were not liable as they didn’t have a duty to make the shop completely safe.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral V Debell stated:
1. The occupier has to ensure the land is reasonably safe for visitors but they don’t have to guarantee complete safety
2. That the risk will be reasonably foreseeable if there is a real source of danger.
Lawful adult visitors: is there a doc if the incident is accidental, is D liable if there is another source of damage ,when does a lawful visitor become a trespasser?
🧸
There is no doc if the incident is accidental
The D will not be liable if there is another cause of damage as seen in Cole v Davis Gilbert
A lawful visitor only become a trespasser when they exceed their permission and enter an unauthorised area if this is the case they are no longer protected under PL 1957 but could use 1984
*Occupiers liability to children
What duty does an occ owe to a child?
What section does children fall under?
Is the standard of care measured subjectively or objectively?
What should the occupier guard against?
The occupier will owe an additional special duty to child visitors
Under S.2(3) the occupier ‘must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age’
The standard of care is measured subjectively according to the age of the child
The occupier should be guard against any allurement
What are the cases for OL for children?
🏴🍓
Is the occ liable if the D/I is foreseeable?
⛵️👦👦
Why are the courts reluctant to find the occ liable when it comes to children?
👩👧👦🕳️
Glasgow Corporation V Taylor held - the council should have fenced of the danger as the berries were an allurement.
However even if the allurement exists the occupier will still not be liable if the damage or injury suffered is not foreseeable.
Jolley V London Borough Council held - the HOL stated that the council were liable, even though it was not for seeable exactly what the children would you on the boat it was for seeable that children would play in the abandoned boat and they had a duty to ensure their safety
We’re young children are injured the courts are reluctant to find the occ liable as the children should be under parental supervision.
Phipps V Rochester Corporation held - the council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents wouldn’t allow their young children to go to places which were potentially unsafe.
Occupiers liability those who are carrying out trade or calling.
What duty does occ owe tradesmen?
What is the section number for known risks?
What is the key rule of the injury is from something different?
What is the case? 🧪 (carbon monoxide)
Occupiers owe tradesman a common doc
However under S.2(3)(b) an occ will not be liable where tradesmen fail to guard against risks which they should know about or would be expected to know about.
- This rule only applies were the tradesman visitor is injured by something related to his trade or calling if the injury is from something different the occupier will still owe the common doc.
Roles V Nathan held - the occupier were not liable as they were right to presume the chimney sweeps would have been aware of the danger of carbon monoxide.
Occupiers liability for the torts of Independent Contractors.
What section number defines who is liable if a workman is injured?
What are the 3 tests?
S.2(4) shows that if the visitor is injured by a Workmans negligent work, the occupier may have a defence and be able to pass the claim to the workman to speak in the workmen liable, not the occupier.
in order for this to happen three requirements must be satisfied:
It must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to an independent contractor.
The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task.
The occupier must check that the work has been properly done.
If the occupier can prove the 3 conditions have been satisfied then the C will claim from the contractor rather than the occupier.
What is the definition and case for it must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to an independent contractor?
🛗 🪦
The more complicated and specialist the work is the more likely the occupier would have to pass the work to a specialist.
Haselidine v Daw & Son Ltd held - the occupier was not liable for the negligent repair and maintenance of the lift as this was the work which was highly specialist and it was reasonable to give the work to specialist firm.
What is the definition and case of the contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task?
🎾🧨
A certificate could show that the contracted is competent to carry out the task.
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club held - an occupier of the land can be liable to an injured employer or agent of an independent contractor carrying out activities on the land.
