Occupiers Liability

Question 1

Wheat v E Lacon

Answer 1

There can be more than one Occupier

Question 2

Bailey v Armes

Answer 2

There may be no Occupier if nobody is in control on the premises.

Question 3

The Calgarth

Answer 3

A person can be invited to use the staircase but is not permitted to slide down the banister.
Trivial deviation may not change their status.

Question 4

Laverton v Takeaway

Answer 4

Occupier only needs to ensure they are reasonably safe not completely safe.

Question 5

Glasgow V Taylor

Answer 5

children are owed a higher level of care than adults because they are less careful

Question 6

Phipps v Rochester

Answer 6

in some situations the occupier can expect a child to be supervised by an adult

Question 7

roles v Nathan

Answer 7

Workers are expected to protect against special risks

Question 8

Hazeldine v Daw

Answer 8

It must be reasonable for the Occupier to have given work to the independent contractor

Question 9

Bottomley v Cricket Club

Answer 9

Independent contractor must be competent.

Question 10

Woodward v Hastings

Answer 10

Occupier must check the work is properly done.

Question 11

Smith v Barker & Sons

Answer 11

Claimant must know of the precise risk for Volenti to apply.

Question 12

Sayers v Urban District Council

Answer 12

If claimant contributes to the negligence damages will be reduced.

Question 13

The law reform Act 1945

Answer 13

Damages will be reduced according to the amount the Claimant contributed.

Question 14

Staples v District Council

Answer 14

Do not need to warn against obvious risks.

Question 15

Tomlinson v Borough Council

Answer 15

Danger was due to the trespassers actions not due to the state of the premises.

Question 16

Rhind v Water Park

Answer 16

Occupier is not expected to check for hidden dangers when claimant is a trespasser.

Question 17

Keown v NHS Trust

Answer 17

Child trespassers are owed the same standard of care as adult trespassers.