Occupiers’ liability

Question 1

Claims considered as the occupier ?
(Case)

Answer 1

Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Question 2

Ocupiers liability Act 1957 - Lawful visitor :

Answer 2

1.Can claim for property damages and personal injury
2.Potential for transferring duty to the independent contractor (name)
3.OLA 1957 covers lawful visitors - those with express or implied permission

Question 3

S1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Answer 3

Definition of occupier left to common law.
Occupational control test used in Wheat v Lacon 1966.

Question 4

S3 (1) (b) OLA 1957:

Answer 4

Covers claims for personal injury and property damage.

Question 5

How breach is tested ?

Answer 5

Breach tested objectively under ordinary common law principles -
1. likelihood someone could be injured, seriousness of any injury that may occur (Wagon Mound)
2. social value of the activity (Watt)
3.preventative measures that were taken (Latimer)

Question 6

S2 (3) OLA 1957 :

Answer 6

1. Higher standard expected if visitor is a child - they are to be expected to be less careful than adults.
2. Specialists and contractors are expected to understand and guard against any risks associated with their common calling.

Question 7

S2 (4) OLA 1957

Answer 7

Warnings given by an occupier may result in the duty being discharged. Roles v Nathan (1963)
> An occupier does no have to guard against obvious risks, for example, Tomlinson

Question 8

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 - Unlawful visitor

Answer 8

Requiements to be satisfied before occupier will own a non-visitor duty of care :
1. Aware of the danger
2. Aware of a non-visitor
3. Reasonable expectation that precaution should have been taken

Question 9

Both OLA’57 & OLA’84 : danger

Answer 9

1. Covers danger due to defective state of premise
2. Danger arising from activities occupier permits on premises
3. Accidents resulting from dangerous activities voluntarily not covered Tomlinson

Question 10

Both OLA’57 & OLA’84 : Breach

Answer 10

Ordinary common law principles apply :
1. Likelihood (Wagon Mound)
2. Seriousness
3. Social value of the activity (Watt)
4. Preventative measures (Latimer)

Question 11

S2 (3) (a) OLA’57 : Children

Answer 11

> Both statutes contain specific provisions relevant in assessing standard of care and whether it has been discharged.
higher standards of care re: child visitors
Principle limited in (Phipps) to prevent transfer of parental responsibility > occupiers entitled to assume that young children are accompanied by a responsible adult when visiting their premises

Question 12

S2 (3)(b) OLA’57 : Specialists

Answer 12

> occupiers to assume that specialists such as contractors, will recognise and guard against risks commonly associated with their jobs whilst visiting premises (Roles v Nathan)

Question 13

S2 (4) (a) OLA’57 : Warning
S1 (5) OLA’84

Answer 13

Ack. that a warning provided by or on behalf of the occupier may discharge the duty of care , provided the warning is enough to enable the visitor to avoid the risk

Question 14

When warning does not apply ?

Answer 14

Courts confirm that the need to provide a warning does not apply in relation to risks which ought to be obvious to the visitor (Tomlinson)