occupiers liability

Question 1

2 acts

Answer 1

occupiers liability act 1957- lawful visitors
occupiers liability act 1984- trespassers

Question 2

first step for both: define the occupier

Answer 2

sc 57 the old common law- someone who exercises sufficient control over the premises
wheat v lacon (can be multiple occupiers)

Question 3

step 3 for both: who is a lawful visitor

Answer 3

someone who has express or implied permission to be on the premises
McGeown v Northern Ireland housing- not a visitor
phipps v rochester- implied permission

Question 4

step 2 for both: defining the premises

Answer 4

fixed or movable structures (including any vessel or vehicle)
fosbroke- hobbed v airwork- aircraft
wheeler v copas- ladders

Question 5

step 4 for OLA 1985: scope of duty

Answer 5

sc2(1) an occupier owes the visitor a common duty of care
sc2(2) to take such care in all the circumstances to keep them reasonably safe for purpose of their visit
Fryer v Pearson- had done all that was reasonable

Question 6

step 5 of OLA 1957: class of visitors, chilren

Answer 6

sc 2(3) children- higher duty as you can expect them to be less careful (glasgow corporation v taylor)
phipps v rochester- occupier can expect parents to supervise very young children

Question 7

step 5 of OLA 1957: class of visitors, acting in the course of their expertise

Answer 7

sc2(3)(b) someone acting in the course of their experise- occupier can expect them to guard against risks which are apparent to professionals
roles v nathan

Question 8

step 6 of OLA 1957: discharging duty

Answer 8

sc2(4)(a) warnings- when the warning is sufficient, depending on the circumstances
Rae v Mars
exemption clauses- cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury
business to business- UCTA
business to consumer- consumer rights act
(cannot be understood by children)

Question 9

step 6 of OLA 1957: discharging duty, independant contractors

Answer 9

sc2(4) independant contractor-
it must be reasonable to have netrusted the work to the IC
the contractor must be competent for the task
the occupier must inspect the work
Maguire v sefton

Question 10

defences for OLA 1957

Answer 10

contributory negligence
volenti (consent)

Question 11

step 4 OLA 1984: duty to non-visitors

Answer 11

British railway board v herrington
owes a duty for any risk if c can prove-
a. he is aware of the danger or reasonable grounds to believe they exist
b. he knows or has reasonble grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of fanger
c. it is reasonable to be expected to offer some protection against

Question 12

step 5 OLA 1984: discharging duties

Answer 12

tomlinson- no need to bring obvious dangers to the attention of non-visitors
warning signs- ratcliffe v Mcconnell
exclusions- unlikely to be effective

Question 13

what can you claim for

Answer 13

OLA 1957- PI or damage to property
OLA 1984- only PI