Occupiers' Liability^ Flashcards
The Occupiers Liability Act 1957
for lawful visitors
Occupier
no statutory definition
who is in control of the premises
if no one is control, then there is no one to claim against
Wheat V E Lacon
can be more than one occupier of a premises
Bailey V Armes
no occupier
can only be liable if they have control over the premises
Premises
section 1 (3) (a) of the Occupier Liability Act 1957
a fixed or movable structure
including any vessels, vehicle and aircraft
lifts, ladder can be premises in some cases
A Lawful Visitor
a person who has expressed or implied permission to be there
can exceed their permission and become a trespasser
The Calgarth
a person who is invited to use the staircase is not permitted to slide down the bannister
legal visitor turn trespasser
Trival deviations may not change a person status
Duty Owed Under The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957
legal visitor
take such care that is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which they are invited
Laverton & Takeway
care need to be reasonable and not complete
Glasgow V Taylor
children are owed a higher level of care because they are less careful than adults
Phipps V Rochester
young children should be supervised
Roles V Nathan
a worker will guard any special risks so long as the occupier allows him to do so
only works if the risk is related to their job
Independent Contractor
an occupier may be able to avoid liability for the work done by an independent so long as:
it was reasonable for the occupier to give the work to the independent contractor
the contractor is competent to carry out that task
the occupier has checked that the work has been properly done
Hazeldine V Dew
if a competent independent contractor is used then the occupier can avoid liability
Bottomley V Cricket Club
amateurs with no experience
occupier liable as their contractor was not competent
Woodward V Mayor of Hastings
occupier must check the work done by the contractor
Volenti
trespasser and legal visitor
complete defence
claimant consented to the risk
- knows precise risk
- exercise free choice
- voluntarily accepted the risk
Smith V Baker & Sons
knew there was a risk but didnt consent to it
Contributory Negligence
trespasser and legal visitor
partial defence - reduced compensation
claimant is partly responsible for damage
Sayers V Urban District Council
example of contributory negligence
claimant is partly responsible for damage
The Law Reform Act 1945
damages will be reduced according to the amount the claimant contributes
Exclusion Clauses
only for legal visitor
occupier tried to exclude liability with a clause of a contract
Consumers Rights Act For Exclusion Clauses
limits the effects of EC
can’t excluded liability for death or personal injury
Warning Notices
legal visitor and trespasser
complete defence if:
- the occupier knows their is a risk and warns against it
only a complete defence is enough if the warning notice is enough to keep them reasonably safe
Staples V District Council
don’t need to warn against obvious risk
The Occupiers Liability Act 1984
trespasser
person who has no permission
Tomlinson V Congleton
LV exceed their permission and became a T
danger was due to their actions not due to the state of the premises
Duty Owed
can only claim compensation for personal injury not property damage
Elements of Breaching Duty
occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable ground to believe it exists
they know or have reasonable grounds to believe the other person is in the vicinity of the danger
may be expected to protect the other person against the risk
Keown V NHS Trust
the occupier only needs to protect for danger that arises from their premises not kid trespassers’ actions who will be owed the same care as adult trespassers
Rhind V Water Park
the occupier does not have a duty to check for hidden dangers against trespasser
