occupiers liability

Question 1

1

Answer 1

occupier: suufient control over the premises
wheat v lacon: both woner and manager possible ocuupiers, this allows for mpre tjan one occupier tonbe sued
a03: unfair to ocuupier, c cpuld obtrain harm on purpose , this could open floodgates to cxalims and unlaw compensation. eg harris v birckenhead: council had not even brought it yet when boybwas i jured and calim was made

Question 2

s1.3 premises

Answer 2

states that premises imvlude a fized movebale strcuture includi9ng any vessle, aircarfs or vehicle as sated in wheeler v copas even a ladder counts as a premises. the problem with this is that the maning of premises is to broad and wide. this alows for claims on every single object nearly, this means ocuupirs have to nail down each object of theirs to reduce potentisl claims, overall this has a financial toll ob the occupier anfd could still lead to a claim

Question 3

s2.3a higher standard of care for children

Answer 3

ocupier must be praspred for children to be less carteful than adults and make sure the premises are reasoably safe for a child of that age
glagow v taylor; nd liable for nort guarding againsy allurement of berries which may attract children,
this is unfgair on occupiers as it is not their duty to babysit kids as it can be arheued that chukdren shoukd be accompa ied byt parents, howver younger cdhuldren are unabke to reaed signs so theregfore a barrier shoukd have been pkaced to prevent such an incident from occuring, judgews developed a way to avpid liabilitt,
phipps v rochester: very young child: court decidec pccupier entilted to ecxept very toung chuldre will be accompanied, however no set defintion on what a very toung child is as in the case it was a 5 yrs old

Question 4

s2.3b lower standatd of care for proffesional visitors ,

Answer 4

occupier is entitled to believe that prof visitors will guard against their iwn riskks

roles v nathan: d not liable as c the chimney sweeper should have known to switch off the boiler
reasoavle to except proofs to do so, not fair on occupeirr to warn electricans as it isa aprt of their job and occupier has no expertise s either not aware or unaawre of how to do so
howeber occupier should warn against dangers they are aware of sucg as collapsing ceilieng
however vistor could assume that occupier would have alr done so esp in established busi esses that ahve alr reqyured work.