Occupiers' Liability Flashcards
What is an ‘occupier’ defined as + in what case?
As held in Wheat V Lacon:
-Anyone who is in control of the land
-Usually the owner or tenant but can sometimes be more than one person
What is premises defined as and in what part of OLA 1957 +1984?
Defined in S1(3)
-Any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle or aircraft
What does OLA 1957 cover?
-Lawful Visitors
What does OLA 1984 cover?
-Trespassers
(Lawful Visitors) What are the different stages?
-STAGE 1: Was the claimant a lawful
visitor?
-STAGE 2: Has the occupier satisfied his DOC?
-STAGE 3: Was the claimant a lawful
child visitor?
-STAGE 4: Was the claimant carrying
out a trade?
-STAGE 5: Was the claimant an
independent contractor?
(Lawful Visitors) What section defines Stage 1?
S2(1)
(Lawful Visitors) What does Stage 1 say?
LAWFUL VISITOR?
-Defines a lawful visitor as an
invitee, a licensee, those with contractual permission and
those with a statutory right EG a meter reader or a police
officer exercising a warrant.
-If claimant is a lawful visitor= occupier owes him a
common duty of care
(Lawful Visitors) What section defines Stage 2?
S2(2)
(Lawful Visitors) What section defines Stage 3?
S2(3a)
(Lawful Visitors) What does Stage 2 say? 2x cases
DOC?
S2(2)= Occupier must take care
to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the
premises for the purpose for which he is invited to be there.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway- the premises do not
have to be completely safe – the occupiers just have to take
reasonable care.
Dean of Rochester Cathedral v Debell= minor blemishes
and defects are not enough to impose liability; there has to be
a real source of danger.
(Lawful Visitors) What does Stage 3 say? 2x cases
S2(3a)=Occupiers should be prepared for children to be less
careful than adults and the premises must be reasonably safe
for a child that age
-Glasgow Corporation v Taylor=
general principle
anything classed as an allurement or
attraction to children should be protected against.
-Phipps v Rochester Corporation, the court held that the child
should be under the supervision of parents or other adults.
(Lawful Visitors) What section defines Stage 4?
S2(3b)
(Lawful Visitors) What does Stage 4 say? 1x case
S2(3b)-The occupier can expect
a tradesman to appreciate + guard against any *risks *
ordinarily incident to it which they should know about/ be
expected to know about.
Roles v Nathan= occupiers were not liable as they could have expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of carbon monoxide
(Lawful Visitors) What section defines Stage 5?
S2(4)
(Lawful Visitors) What does Stage 5 say? 3x cases
S2(4)=occupiers can pass
liability to the contractor for NEGLIGENT WORK if 3 criteria
are satisfied
- Is it reasonable for the occupier to have *given the work *to
the contractor? – Haseldine v Daw - Is the contractor competent to carry out the task? –
Bottomley v Todmorden CC - Has the occupier checked the work has been properly
done? – Woodward v The Mayor of Hasting
What is a ‘trespasser’ defined as in OLA 1984?
-Anyone who has no permission to be on the occupier’s premises or who has gone beyond their permission to be on the premises.
What is a case for ‘trespasser’ definition + what did it say?
*Herrington v British Railways Board
*
-Duty of common humanity
to trespassers where the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass
What are the 5 conditions for imposing liability on occupiers for TRESPASSERS?
1) Was the injury due to the state of
the premises?
2) Was the occupier aware of the
danger?
3) Did the occupier have reason to
suspect trespassers?
4) Is it a risk against which the
occupier may be expected to take
precautions?
5) Has the occupier taken such care
as is reasonable?
(Tresspassers) (1) Was the injury due to the state of
the premises? SECTION + RULING + CASE
s1(1)(a)
Ratcliff v McConnell
-Injuries have to have been caused by the state of the premises, not the claimant’s own
stupidity
(Tresspassers) (2) Was the occupier aware of the
danger? SECTION + RULING + CASE
s1(3)(a)
Rhind v Astbury Water Park
-An occupier cannot be expected to offer protection against unknown dangers
(Tresspassers) (3) Did the occupier have reason to
suspect trespassers? SECTION + RULING + CASE
s1(3)(b)
Higgs v Foster
-Occupier has to be able to anticipate presence of a trespasser
(Tresspassers)(4) Is it a risk against which the
occupier may be expected to take
precautions? SECTION + RULING + CASE
s1(3)(c)
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
-The practicalities of taking precautions EG: cost
(Tresspassers)(5) Has the occupier taken such care
as is reasonable? SECTION + RULING + CASE
s1(4)
Reasonable care taken to ensure trespasser is safe
EG: warning signs
