Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort Law > Occupiers Liability > Flashcards

Occupiers Liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Duty of care for occupiers liability

A

Largely governed by statute.
* Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
* Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Occupiers; Liability Act 1957

A

Governs the duty owed by occupiers to visitors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

A

Governs the duty owed by occupiers to non-visitors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Occupiers’ liability is concerned with…

A

Loss caused by the state or condition of premises or things done or omitted to be done during the occupation of such premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Occupiers liability = an extension

A

An extension to the traditional rules of negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Claims at occupiers liability made at

A
  • Occupiers Liability Act and common law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Scope of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

A
  • Act governs duty owed by occupiers to visitors.
  • Duty relates to the “state of premises” rather “an activity” on the premises.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton 2004

A
  • The 18 year old claimant dived into shallow water of a lake.
  • Hit his head and sustained an injury
  • HoL held risk was from claimant diving and not from state of premises.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Under the OLA 1957 a visitor can claim…

A

Both
* Personal Injury
* Property damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Duty of care under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

A

Occupier of premises owes the common duty if care to all their visitors.
section 2(1) OLA 1957

Reasonable care and reasonably safe for use of the purposes - duty is to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Following s2(1) there are three terms to understand if DoC applies OLA 11957

A
  • Occupier
  • Premises
  • Visitor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

OLA 1957 - Occupier

A
  • Duty is on the occupier of the premises
  • Section 1(2) OLA 1957 states occupier = under common law.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Occupier

A

Someone who has sufficient degree of control over the premises.
Wheat v Lacon 1966
Sufficiency of control is a question of fact.
Someone who is not the owner of the premises can still be occupier.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Wheat v Lacon 1966

A

Someone has a sufficient degree of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Wheat v Lacon 1966 - L Denning

A

Whereevera person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise any failure on his part to use cate may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an occupier.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wheat v Lacon 1966 - Categories of occupier

A
  • landlord does not live on property; tenant = occupier
  • Landlord retains some parts of the premises, they are the occupier of those parts
  • Landlord issues a licence, they remain an occupier
  • Occupier employs and indepenedent contractor they are generally still responsible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bailey v Armes 1999

A
  • Liability is based on occupancy or control, not an ownership.
  • Who is actual possession
  • Immediate supervision, control and power of permitting / prohibiting entry
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Multiple Occupiers

A
  • Wheat v Lacon 1966
  • Not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises
  • Must have sufficient control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Ferguson v Welsh 1987

A

Council wanted building demolishing - and prohibited sub-contracting.
But was sub-contracted, claimant sustained injury. Sued all. HoL held they were a lawful visitor for Mr Spence, but trespasser for council

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

OLA 1957 - Premises

A
  • Doe not include land and buildings
    s1(3)(a)
    “any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel or aircraft”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Wheeler v Copas 1981

A

Ladder = premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

OLA 1957 - Visitors

A

Occupier owes an automatic duty to visitors - persons lawfully on the property.

Section 1(2) OLA 1957 - “ persons who would at common law be treated as…invitees and licensees”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Under common law, visitors are ….

A
  • Persons have express or implied permission to be on the occupier’s premises.
  • Includes hose with lawful authority and contractual permission.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Express Permission

A

May be limited by notice - visitor becomes a trespassor.
Limitations made by: Area, Time, Purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Express Permission - Area

A

Occupiers must be clear as to which area visitors have access to.
Pearson v Coleman Bros 1948

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Pearson v Coleman Bros 1948

A

Attacked by a lion
No signs saying not to access.
= visitor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Darby v National Trust 2001

A

Inconspicuous sign in a car park saying there should be no bathing in the pond.
No sign at the pond.
Car park was not next to the pond.
Not enough to turn claimant into trespasser.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Express Permission - Time

A

An occupier can restrict entry by imposing a time limit (opening hours), but it must be made clear to the visitor.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Stone v Taffe and Another 1974

A

Manager of a pub permitted a function to be held upstairs after licensing ours.
Gues fell down the stairs = visitors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Express Permission - Purpose

A
  • Invitee goes beyond the purpose they were invited fore - become trespasser.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton 2003

A

Claimant was to use the lake for canoeing, fishing and windsurfing only.
Swimming in lake = trespassing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Implied Permission

A

Exists because of an occupiers’ behaviour.
eg Postman has implied permission to be on a person’s property.
May be limited by notice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Lowery v Walker 1911

A
  • Public used defendants land as a shortcut for 25 years
  • New took no action to prevent = implied licence.
  • Attacked by wild horse.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Edwards v Railway Executive 1952

A
  • Spot on the railway = shortcut
  • Fence repaired, but repeatedly beaten down.
  • Fence in good repair.
  • Child hit by train = trespass
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Lawful authority

A

s2(6) OLA 1957
Warrant or statutory right can enter premises as lawful visitors with or without permission.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Contractual authority

A

s5(1) OLA1957
If a person enters premises under terms of contract with the occupier, absence of express provision to the contrary = implied term that DoC owed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Public rights of way

A

Footpaths are not covered by either the OLA 1957 or OLA 1984 - therefore reliant on common law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Private rights of way

A
  • Are covered by OLA 1984
  • Not cover the OLA 1957
    Differences in terms of DoC owed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949

A

Not regarded as visitors under the OLA 1957, but owed a duty under the OLA 1984

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

A

Codified “right to roam”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

OLA 1957 - Breach - Standard of Care

A

Reasonably safe for using the premises for the purposes for which they were permitted by the occupier to be there
s2(2) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Standard of Care -

A

Therefore that of the reasonable occupier
This is an objective test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Visitor - Standard of care - personal characteristics

A

A visitor may have personal characteristic effecting the standard of care reasonably expected

Pollock v Cahill 2015

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Pollock v Cahill 2015

A

Blind claimant visited his friend
Fell out of second floor window
Occupier must have had regard to any known vulnerability.
Defendant should have warned the claimant or kept the window closed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Child visitors

A

Owed a higher standard of care
OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Exercise their calling

A

Persons entering premises in the exercise of their calling (to exercise their skills)
Owed a standard of care under OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

OLA 1957 - standard of care

A
  • Reasonable standard
  • Respective adjustments for personal circumstance
  • Child
  • Persons to exercise their skills
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

section 2(3)(a) OLA 1957

A

an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Taylor v Glasgow City Council 1922

A

Poisonous berries eaten by child
Liability = no action to warn children of danger.
Bush = allurement
Should have been fenced off
= Breach of SoC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Usefulness of s2(3)(a) OLA 1957

A
  • Higher duty of care for children diminished by the courts sometimes finding that an occupier is entitled to rely on the supervisory role of parents
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955

A
  • Where reasonable occupier is entitled to assume the child will be subject to parental care
  • Blackberrying child fell down a trench - would have been obvious to an adult.
  • Defendants satisfied duty of care as was safe for a parent and child
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

s 2(3)b

A

Occupier can reasonably expect a visitor coming onto their premises to exercise their skills, guard against ordinary risks
* Less is expected of occupiers in relation to skill visitors
* Occupier does not take care to protect against normal risks incidental to their job.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Roles v Nathan (Trading as Manchester Assembly Rooms) 1963

A

Chimney sweeps cleaning out flues of an old boiler.
Tried to do so without extinguishing.
Died from carbon monxide gas.
No liability as is a risk that would normally be guarded against.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Test for falling below the standard of care?

A

Negligence claim:
* Likelihood of harm
* Magnitude of harm
* Social value of the activity
* cost of preventative measures
Balanced
* Will take resources available into account

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd

A
  • Woman slipped on a patch of water on the way to swimming pool
  • Reasonable precautions
  • Reasonable occupier would not have done more
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Laverton v Kiapasha 2002

A
  • Raining and defendant takeaway floor was wet.
  • Defendant did all expected - tiles, doormat and mopping.
  • More might have been expected from a larger business
    Resources taken into account
57
Q

Common duty of care

A

An occupier will satisfy common duty of care if they warn the visitor of danger and the warning was enough to make the visitor reasonably safe

  • s2(4)(a) OLA 1957
58
Q

s2(4)(a) OLA 1957

A

Common duty of care
Warning of danger, if enough

59
Q

Adequate warning of danger

A
  • What the danger is
  • How to avoid it
    Fact in each case as to whether enough. Depends on danger, scope, content and form.
60
Q

Roles v Nathan

A
  • Denying liability
  • Occupier warned the sweeps of the danger of fumes
  • Extinguished the boiler
  • Physically removed the sweeps
  • Warnings were enough.
61
Q

Very obvious dangers may require warnings

A

Staples v West Dorset District
* Obviously a slippery sea wall covered in algae

62
Q

Staples v West Dorset District

A

Obviously a slippery sea wall covered in algae

63
Q

Notice may have a dual effect

A
  • Act to satisfy occupiers duty by warning
  • Operate as an exclusion notice
64
Q

Discharging duty through independent contractors

A
  • General rule is that the duty owed by an occupier to a visitor is non-delegable
    Exception laid out in s2(4)(b) OLA 1957
65
Q

Where building, construction, repair or renovation is carried out by a contractor causing loss… occupier may escape liability if…

A

Satisfies the three requirements of s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957
* Hiring independent contractor
* Selecting the independent contractor (check competency)
* Supervising and checking work was done properly.

66
Q

s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957

A

Discharging duty through independent contractors.
Three independent contractors

67
Q

s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957
Three requirements

A
  • Hiring an independent contractor
  • Selecting the contractor, took steps to check competency.
  • Supervising and checking the work was done properly
68
Q

s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957: Hiring an independent contractor

A
  • Show it was reasonable to use an independent contractor
  • More technical = more reasonable
  • Rare to find unreasonable
69
Q

s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957:
Selecting the independent contractor
(taken steps to check competency)

A
  • Reasonable to choose this particular independent contractor
  • Experience, Trade Associations, Qualifications
70
Q

s 2(4)(b) OLA 1957:
Supervising and checking the work was properly done

A
  • To a reasonable level
  • Depends upon the nature of the work.

Haseldine v Daw
versus
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

71
Q

Haseldine v Daw

A
  • Claimant visited a block of flats, owned by the defendant to see one of the tenants.
  • Injured when the lift plummeted to the basement.
  • Caused by negligence of highly reputable lift engineers.
  • No responsibility as was technical, competent firm
    And defendant had no technical knowledge = not reasonable
72
Q

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

A
  • Pupil at the defendant’s school fell and injured himself on icy step
  • Left in dangerous condition by a cleaner
  • No technical knowledge
  • Should have checked work
    Did not discharge duty
73
Q

Causation and Remoteness

A
  • Nothing in the OLA 1957 that sets out how causation and remoteness should be tackled
  • Once loss has been suffered, there is an assumption that causation and remoteness have been satisfied.
    **Courts will only review if glaring issues with either,.
74
Q

Defences in an OLA 1957

A
  • Volenti / consent
  • Contributory negligence
  • Illegality
75
Q

Defences in an OLA 1957: Volenti / consent

A
  • Section 2(5) OLA 1957
  • The claimant must be fully aware of the particular risk and through their conduct willingly accept the risk.
76
Q

Section 2(5) OLA 1957: Volenti
Cases

A

White v Blackmore 1972

Titchener v British Railway Board

77
Q

White v Blackmore 1972

A
  • Claimant spectator was at a car rally
  • Notices on the site stated there was danger
  • Standing behind a rope ladder, a wheel from one of the vehicles caught the ladder and catapulted the claimant 20 yards.
    Volenti did not apply as was not fully aware of the particular risk of the inadequate barrier
78
Q

Titchener v British Railway Board

A

15 year old consented to the risk when she walked through a gap in the fence ont a life railway line.

79
Q

Defences in an OLA 1957: Contributory Negligence

A

Section 2(3) OLA 1957 provides that in the determining the common duty of care
the degree of care ordinarily looked for in a visitor
* Contributory negligence

Young v Kent CC

80
Q

Young v Kent CC

A
  • A 12 year olds damages were reduced by 50% for contributory negligence
  • Claimant was jumping on and fell through a skylight
  • Trespasser not visitor.
81
Q

Defences in an OLA 1957: Illegality

A
  • General defence
  • Not preserved in the OLA 1957 in the same way as cisent.
82
Q

OLA 1984

A
  • Governs duty owed by occupiers to non visitors
  • Loss
  • Occupier
  • Premises
83
Q

OLA 1984: Loss

A
  • Occupier only liable for Phys Injury, including disease and any impairment of either a person’s phys or mental condition
    (s1(1)(a) and 1(9) OLA 1984)
  • Property damage is not recoverable s1(8) OLA 1984
84
Q

OLA 1984: Occupier

A
  • Defined in the same way as OLA 1957 (section 2)
  • As required by s 1(2)(a) OLA 1984
85
Q

OLA 1984: Premises

A
  • Defined in the same way s under the OLA 1957

s1(2) OLA 1984
* Fixed or moveable structure.

86
Q

Definition of trespasser / non visitor
CASE

A

Robert Addie & Son (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck

87
Q

Robert Addie & Son (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck

Trespasser

A

He who goes on to the land without invitation of any sort, and whose presence is unknown to the proprietor, or is practically objected to.

88
Q

Robert Addie & Son (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck
CASE - Old law

A
  • 4 year old boy was killed in wheel of haulage system
  • Well known that children would enter field
  • Warned children from time-to-time
  • Inadequately protected & attractive to children.
  • Boy was regarded as a trespasser, father had no remedy in law for loss
    Old law - today would probably afford some protection
89
Q

Occupiers Liability Act 1987
Duty of Care

A
  • No automatic duty owed by an occupier to a non visitor
  • Three stage test to est duty of care
    s1(3)(a)-(c) OLA 1984
90
Q

s1(3)(a)-(c) OLA 1984
Three stage tests for duty of care

A

Know or have reasonable grounds to
* Be aware of the danger
* Believe the other is in the vicinity of danger (whether lawful authority to be there or not)
* Risk is reasonably expected to offer the other protection.

91
Q

s1(3)(a)-(c) OLA 1984

A

Three stage tests for duty of care

92
Q

Duty of care: Aware of danger

A

s1(3)(a) OLA 1984
* Be aware of danger
* Actual knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable occupier to be aware of danger.

Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd

93
Q

Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd

A
  • Claimant dived into a lake
  • Suffered head injury on fibreglass container
  • Container was not visible from surface
  • No knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe
    No duty of care
94
Q

Duty of care: Knowledge the other is in the vicinity

A

s1(3)(b) OLA 1984
* Must know or have reasonable grounds to believe.
* Someone is in vicinity, or may come into the vicinity of danger.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd

95
Q

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd

A
  • Claimant suffered diving into defendant’s harbour
  • No duty owed, as although defendant was aware people swam
  • No duty of care owed
  • Not aware people would swim at night iin midwinter.
96
Q

Swain v Natui Ram Puri

A
  • Court held that defendant must have actual knowledge
  • of claimant’s presence in vicinity
  • OR of facts that would create a reasonable belief of a likely presence
97
Q

Duty of care: Reasonable to protect trespasser against risk

A

s1(3)(c) OLA 1984
* Must be a risk that it is reasonable, in all circumstances to protect trespasser from.
* Balancing costs - obvious, hidden, risk level
* Not expected to protect trespassers from obvious risks and self inflicted harm
* Unless no informed choice

98
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

A

Child unable to appreciate the danger.

No informed choice by trespasser for risks.

99
Q

s1(3)(a) OLA 1984

A

Reasonable grounds for knowledge of danger

100
Q

s1(3)(b) OLA 1984

A

Knowledge that the other is in the vicinty.

101
Q

s1(3)(c) OLA 1984

A

Reasonable to protect trespasser against the risk .

102
Q

Section1(4) OLA 1984

A

Duty up occupier to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the entrant does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of danger

103
Q

Standard of care under OLA 1984

A

Section1(4) OLA 1984
Standard is that of reasonable occupier

104
Q

When deciding what amounts to reasonable care under OLA 1984

A

Weigh up negligence breach factors
* Nature of the danger (hidden or obvious)
* Claimant (adult or child)
* Nature of premises (how dangerous)
* Purpose of claimant (burglar or accidental trespass)
* Occupier could or should have foreseen trespassing.

105
Q

Analysis of breach: Swain v Natui Ram Puri

A
  • Defendant erected 7 foot fence with barbed wire.
  • Small section missing
  • Used ladder to climb onto roof
  • Fell through skylight
    No duty owed, factory defunct, no children seen, reasonable steps taken
106
Q

Analysis of breach: Young v Kent County Council

A
  • Council liable for claimant’s injury as children climbing on roof was known risk
  • Failed to protect against
  • Low cost fencing solution
  • HSE report indicated the skylight was brittle and
107
Q

Section 1(5) OLA 1984

A

Duty may be satisfied if occupier takes all reasonable steps to give warning of the danger, or discourage persons from incurring risk.

108
Q

Warning notices OLA 19864

A

Section1(4) OLA 1984
* All reasonable steps to give warning
* Notice will satisfy if sufficiently discourages
* Harder to discharge duty with a notice if a child where too young to read or appreciate the danger

109
Q

Is it easier to satisfy the warning notice duty under OLA 1984 or OLA 1957

A

OLA 1984 is easier, as just need to take reasonable steps

  • Notice will satisfy if sufficiently discourages
110
Q

Titchener v British Railway Board 1983

A

Fences constructed by railway = sufficient warning.

Physical barriers can be enough to discourage trespassers from taking the risk

111
Q

Causation and remoteness
OLA 1984

A

Deal in same way as OLA 1957

112
Q

Defences under OLA 1984

A
  • Consent /violenti
  • Contributory negligence
  • Illegality
113
Q

OLA 1984: Consent Volenti

A

s1(6) OLA 1984
* Ratcliff v McConnel and Harpepr Adams College 1997

114
Q

Ratcliff v McConnel and Harpepr Adams College 1997

A
  • Drunk student climbed over locked gate to access college’s swimming pool
  • Notice stating pool would be locked and use was prohibited from a certain 10 - 630 am
  • Shallow end - broke neck and paralysed
    No duty owed, defendant discharged duty
  • Defence of consent would have been successful.
115
Q

OLA 1984: Contributory Negligence

A
  • Partial defence
  • Not provided for in OLA 1984
  • Can be relied upon by defendants
    Young v Kent County Council
    Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
116
Q

Young v Kent County Council

A

Claimant was held to be contributory negligent
Damages reduced by 50%

117
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

A

*CoA decision overturned by the HoL
* Defendant liable.
* CoA finding had been subject to contributory negligence of 2/3s

118
Q

OLA 1984: Illegality

A
119
Q

Revill v Newbery

A
  • Claimant trespasser committed burglary
  • Shot by defendant
  • Considered under negligence rather than OLA
  • If defence was allowed, any defence y trespasser with illegal intent could be defeated.
    Does not align with purpose of OLA 1984, defence unlikely to succeed
120
Q

OLA 1957 Exclusion or limitation clauses

A

Section 2(1) OLA 1957
* Allows occupier, as far as free to do so, to extend, restrict, modify or exclude their duty to prisoners.
* Four restrictions on occupier’s freedom to exclude.

121
Q

Four restrictions on occupier’s ability to exclude liability under OLA 1957

A
  • Section 3 OLA 1957
  • UCTA 1977
  • CRA 2015
  • Common Law
122
Q

Exclusions:
Section 3 OLA 1957

A
  • Cannot by contract exclude or restrict the common duty of care they owe to a 3rd party.
  • s 3(1)
123
Q

Exclusions:
Section 3(1) OLA 1957

A
  • Where occupier is bound by a contract to allow people who are strangers to use and enter premises
  • DoC owes those strangers as their visitors cannot be restricted or excluded.
124
Q

Stranger
Section 3 OLA 1957

A

s3(3) OLA 1957
* Defined as someone who is not entitled to the benefit of the contract.

125
Q

Exclusions:
UCTA 1977

A
  • Business to business liability
  • s2(1) cannot exclude/limit death or PI for negligence
  • s2(2) exclude/restrict their liability for negligence, if term / notice satisfies reasonableness.
  • s11 Requirement of reasonableness.
126
Q

UCTA 1977
section 2(1)

A

Cannot exclude / restrict their liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

127
Q

UCTA 1977
section 2(2)

A
  • Losses other than death and personal injury
  • A person can exclude /restrict liability for negligence
  • If the term / notice satisfies requirement of reasonableness.
128
Q

UCTA 1977
section 11

A

Requirement of reasonableness
* Faur and reasonable to allow relia ce on the notice
* Having regard to all the circumstances

129
Q

Smith v Bush
Reasonableness

A
130
Q

Exclusions:
CRA 2015

A
  • Trader and consumer
  • Restricts use of exclusion clauses to limit liability for negligence (including OLA 1957)
131
Q

CRA 2015
Section 65(1)

A

Trader cannot exclude / restrict liability for death or personal injury

132
Q

CRA 2015
Section 62(1) and (2)

A

Relation to losses other than death and PO
* Trader can exclude / restrict their liability for negligence if the term / notice is fair

133
Q

Unfair exclusion term
CRA 2015

A
  • Contrary to the requirement of good faith
  • Causes imbalance in rights and obligations
  • To the detriment of consumers.

s62(4)

134
Q

s62(4) CRA

A

Definition of unfair exclusion term.
* Contrary to the requirement of good faith
* Causes imbalance in rights and obligations
* To the detriment of consumers.

135
Q

OLA 1957
Common Law Restrictions

A
  • If UCTA nor the CRA apply
  • Loss suffered to be judged against the principle of common humanity
  • Given in British Railway Board v Herrington
136
Q

British Railway Board v Herrington

A
  • Common humanity
  • Minimum legal standard of care - can never be excluded by agreement or notice.
  • Would a conscientious person with defendant’s knowledge, skill or resources ecpect?
137
Q

Common Humanity

A

Would a conscientious person with the defendant’s knowledge, skill and resources be reasonably expected to have done something which would have helped to avoid the accident?

138
Q

OLA 1984
Exclusion or limitation clauses

A
  • Silent on whether it is possible to exclude
  • Two arguments
  • OLA lays down bare minimum that cannot be avoided
  • Unfair that trespassers would be a better position than lawful visitors, a situation clearly contrary to policy.
  • Likely that some common law restrictions would apply as to the OLA 1957
    *
139
Q
A

Tort Law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions