Occupiers' Liability

Question 1

Wheat v E Lacon

Answer 1

An occupier is anyone with “occupational control”, and there can be more than one occupier

Question 2

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Answer 2

A person has discharged their duty under the OLA 1957 as long as they have taken “reasonable steps” (e.g. mopping the floor regularly)

Question 3

Dean of Rochester Cathedral v Debel (2016)

Answer 3

No one can make an area completely free of risk of tripping or falling - these are everyday occurrences

Question 4

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 4

Child eats poisonous berries in a public park - the Council should have known this would be an allurement

Question 5

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Answer 5

Child falls down a trench on Council land - but the Council is not liable as parents should have stopped their children playing near trenches

Question 6

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Answer 6

14-year-old children injured when playing with an abandoned boat on Council land - Council should have known this would be an allurement

Question 7

Roles v Nathan (1963)

Answer 7

Tradespeople are responsible for risks that fall within their trade

Question 8

Haseldine v Daw

Answer 8

You are not responsible if the danger on you land is caused by contractors’ negligence, as long as you have selected apparently reliable contractors

Question 9

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)

Answer 9

A person is liable if they have irresponsibly selected unreliable contractors, whose work has caused injury

Question 10

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945)

Answer 10

A person is liable if contractors’ work has caused injury, if it was work that was easy to check (e.g. de-icing steps)

Question 11

A warning can be a defence to occupiers’ liability if…

Answer 11

…it is sufficient to allow the visitor to be reasonably safe (e.g., specific and visible)

Question 12

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 12

1984 Act - you are not liable for harm when the danger was obvious (diving into a lake)

Question 13

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 13

OLA 1984 - you are not liable for harm when the danger was obvious (diving into shallow end of a swimming pool)

Question 14

A duty of care arises under the OLA 1984 if…

Answer 14

…(1) An occupier is aware (or should be aware) of a danger on their land (2) They know (or should know) a person could come into contact with that danger and (3) It’s a risk that’s reasonable to expect the occupier to protect against

Question 15

The duty of care under the OLA 1984 is…

Answer 15

…to “take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that [the trespasser] is not injured by reason of the danger”

Question 16

The duty of care under the OLA 1957 is…

Answer 16

…to take reasonable steps to ensure that a lawful visitor will be reasonable safe (for the purposes for which they are visiting the land)

Question 17

Elements that must be present for a duty of care to arise under OLA 1957…

Answer 17

(1) an occupier (2) premises (3) a lawful visitor