Occupiers Liability

Question 1

Occupiers liability act 1957

Answer 1

Claim fot PI and Property damage
- for visitors

Question 2

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Answer 2

Claim for PI only
- for tresspassers

Question 3

Occupier

Answer 3

• no statutory definition
• ‘person in control of the premises’
• don’t need to live there
• can he more than one

CASE: Wheat V Lacon & co ltd
* Occupier is a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises is the occupier. This can be shared with others. Landlord and Brewery were liable.

Question 4

Premises

Answer 4

• No set definition
• s1(3) OLA 1957
• ‘fixed or moveable structure including vessels vehicle and aircraft
• S1(1) danger must be due to the state of premises

CASE: Keown
* hospital not liable. The premises were safe and the boy caused accident himself

Question 5

What people does Occupiers liability act 1957 include

Answer 5

4 types of people to consider under the act:
* adults
* children
* tradesmen
* independent contractors - pass blame if they did the work and are responsible for defect.

Question 6

Adult

Answer 6

• Premises must be reasonably safe for the purpose of the visit.
• reasonably safe- premises do not need to be completely risk free. Occupiers need to protect against ‘real source of danger’

CASE: Rochester cathedral V Debell
* Not liable. Slips, trips and falls are everyday pccurences premises must be reasonably safe not completely safe.

Question 7

Child

Answer 7

• Under 2(3)(a) premises must be reasonably safe for a child of thag age. ‘an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’
• very young children- responsibility of their parents
• Allurements- (temptations/attractions) if forseeable D will be liable

CASE: Taylor V Glasgow Corporation
- Liable. The berries were an allurement that Ds were aware of and offered no protection against.

Question 8

Tradesman & Rescuers (worker)

Answer 8

• Under s2(3)(b) the same duty as adults apply but the trader/rescuer has to guard themselves from special risks associated with their role.
• e.g. plumber, builder, electrician

CASE: Roles V Nathan
- Not liable. Trademen have a duty to protect themselves against known risks to their trade

Question 9

Independent contractors

Answer 9

• Under S2(4)(b) liability can be passed onto an independent contractor if the following are satisfied:
  1. Acted reasonably in entrusting the contractor
  2. taken reasonable steps to satisfy that the contractor was competent
  3. taken reasonable steps to inspect the work

CASE: Alexander V Freshwater
- The occupier and the IC were equally liable.The contractors work was faulty and the occupier knew.

Question 10

Defences available
(1957)

Answer 10

1. consent - common duty of care does not apply to a visitor who willingly accepted the risks
2. contributory negligence - provides a partial defence (up to 100%) where C contributed to their own injuries
   CASE: English Heritage V Taylor
3. warning notices - warning notices can absolve liability where they are enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
   CASE: English Heritage V Taylor
4. Exclusion clauses - occupiers can extend, restrict, modify or exlide their duty to visitors by an exclusion clause. Cannot exlude liability for death or PI only PD.

Question 11

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Answer 11

• can only claim for PI
• covers trespassers
• created duty of care to trespassers in BRB V Herrington - ‘common duty of humanity’

Question 12

Test to establish liability for trespasser

Answer 12

1. WAS THE OCCUPIER AWARE OF DANGER. Occupier needs to either be aware of the danger or have reasonable ground to suspect there is a danger.
   CASE: Rhind V Astbury Water Park.
   - D were not liable as they were not aware of the danger (fiberglass)
2. DID OCCUPIER KNOW/SHOULD THEY KNOW THAT A TRESPASSER MAY ENTER PREMISES. occupier needs to be aware trespassers might come into area.
   CASE: HIGGS V FOSTER
   - D was not liable. There was no belief trespassers would come into area. C climbed wall to enter.
3. RISK INVOLVED MEANS OCCUPIER EXPECTED TO OFFER SOME PROTECTION. occupier must offer enough protection but the courts will not expect them to go above and beyond.
   CASE: Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council
   - D was not liable dangers were obvious and warning signs were displayed. D was not expected to offer any additional protection.

Question 13

Defenses available (1984)

Answer 13

• Consent
• contributory negligence
• warning notice - if they have warned of the danger the occupier can discharge their duty.