Occupiers' Liability

Question 1

Statute for duty towards those who come onto land with permission

Answer 1

Occupiers’ liability 1957

Question 2

Statute for duty towards trespassers

Answer 2

Occupiers’ liability 1984

Question 3

What is an Occupier

Answer 3

Common law, an occupier is the person in control of the premises

Question 4

Wheat v E.lacon & co Ltd 1966

Answer 4

-Manager of pub given right to rent out rooms
-Guest fell down unlit staircase
-Manager and employer as occupiers and liable as in control at the time

Question 5

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation 1976

Answer 5

-4 year old injured in an empty house
-Council had taken control of property but not taken possession yet
-Not made the premises safe
-Decided council was in “occupation” of the premises

Question 6

Bailey v Armes 1999

Answer 6

-Defendants lived in flat above supermarket and let son play on the roof
-Sons friend fell off
-Supermarket nor parents were occupiers for roof as neither had control of it

Question 7

Section of statute that defines premises

Answer 7

Section 1(3) Occupiers’ liability act 1957

Question 8

Wheeler v Copas 1981

Answer 8

-A labourer injured on an inadequate ladder supplied by defendant
-Defendant not an occupier

Question 9

Define Invitee

Answer 9

A lawful visitor who is invited into a property

Question 10

Define Licensee

Answer 10

Given authority to have a right to be on the property, e.g. landlords

Question 11

Contractually permitted

Answer 11

Contracted to be on a property

Question 12

Statutory right to enter

Answer 12

Right to enter that is authorised by a statute e.g. Police, public pathways

Question 13

Occupiers’ duty towards an adult

Answer 13

s.2(2) 1957 act - Take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited for

Question 14

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway supreme 2002

Answer 14

-claimant had heels and had alot to drink
-in a crowded area with wet floor due to weather
-owner had cleaned floor alot and had non slip tiles
-claimant slipped owner not liable for natural circumstances(weather being dreaded inside)

Question 15

Dean & Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Devell 2016

Answer 15

-Premises must be a “real source of danger” before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found

Question 16

(Occupiers liability) Statute and section for children

Answer 16

s.2(3) of the 1957 act
“Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age”

Question 17

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1923

Answer 17

-Defendants owned the botanic gardens of Glasgow
-open to public and a boy of 7 years ate berries from the shrubs and died from the poison
-no warning signs or fencing
-Alluring to children so duty owed and defendant was liable

Question 18

Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955

Answer 18

-5 year old boy was walking across some open ground with sister (7)
-fell into trench
-Corp was not held at fault as prudent parents would not let this happen

Question 19

Jolley v London borough of Sutton 2000

Answer 19

-2 14 year old boys found abandoned boat on council land
-In rotten condition and dangerous warning sign to not go in
-Council didn’t take it away and fell on boy
-Council liable

Question 20

(Occupiers liability) Statute and section for tradespeople

Answer 20

S.2 1957 act
“ an occupier can expect a trades person to guard against any particular danger arising out of the nature of the work”

Question 21

Roles v Nathan 1963

Answer 21

-Chimney cleaners were warned it was too dangerous to do job and escorted out
-secretly came back later to do it and died from the danger
-Occupiers not liable as they gave sufficient warning

Question 22

What 3 things can reduce the liability of the occupier to a contractor

Answer 22

1: It was reasonable to provide the work to the contractor
2:The occupier checked the contractor was qualified to do the work
3:The occupier checked the work was done completely(if they could have)

Question 23

Haseldine v Daw & son Ltd 1941

Answer 23

-Occupiers of a block of flats had some contractors to make inspections of the safety of a lift
-One time they had been negligent on repairing it
-claimant was injured when lift fell
-Occupiers not liable as they had checked if qualified and couldn’t inspect as too complicated

Question 24

4 defences for Occupiers liability

Answer 24

Contributory negligence
Consent
Warning notices
Exclusion clauses

Question 25

(Occupiers liability) Statute and section for Exclusion clauses

Answer 25

s.2(1) of the 1957 act enables an occupier to “ restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise”