Occupiers Liability Flashcards
OLA 1957 Steps to success
intro - OLA 57, D owes duty of care to lawful visitors, claim PI for injuries/ loss/ damage on property
1 - s.1(2) who is an occupier, what is a premises
2 - s.2(1) types of visitors: invitee, liscencee, contractual permission, statutory right
3- S.2(2) standard of care: duty to adults, children, tradespersons
4 - Defences: warning notices, independent contractors, exclusion clauses
5 - contributory negligence/ consent if relevant
What is OLA 1957
Occupiers of a premisies owe a duty of care to lawful visitors. If duty breached, compensation given for PI/ loss/ damage to property
OLA 1957/ 1984 - what is the section, definition, and case of an occupier
S.1(2) - the person in control of the premises
Wheat - C fell down stairs and died - showed can be multiple occupiers
OLA 1957/ 1984 - What is the definition of a premises, and examples
PREMISES IS THE THING ON THE LAND THAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT
“fixed or moveable structure, including vessles, vehicles, and aircrafts”
fixed = house
moveable = ladder/ lift
OLA 1957 - what are the 4 types of lawful visitors and their definitons
invitee - person w express permission
licensee - permission to be there for a specific period
contractual permission - bought a ticket to be there
statutory right - act of parliament allowing them to enter
OLA 1957 - what are the 3 types of standard of care and cases
adults - Debell V Rochester Cathedral
children - Glasgow Corp
tradesmen - Roles V Nathan
OLA 1957 - what is the section, rule, and case for duty towards adults
S.2(2)
1- O must make it reasonably safe, not guarantee safety
2 - must be a real source of danger
Debell V Rochester Cathedral - falling is an everyday occurence so no breach
OLA 1957 - what is the section, rule, and case for duty towards children
S.2(3)(a) - must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
Glasgow Corp V Taylor - berries near park were an allurement
OLA 1957 - what is considered for duty towards children if child is very young
under 4 years, courts less likely to find O liable as child shouldve been supervised
OLA 1957 - what is the rule, section, and case for duty towards tradesmen
S.2(3)(b) - same rule as adults, but worker must guard themself from risk associated with their trade
Roles V Nathan - chimney warned of risk and died from poisioning. O not liable
OLA 1957 - what are the 5 relevant defences
warning notices
independant contractors
exclusion clauses
contributory negligence
consent/ violenti
OLA 1957 - what is the rule and case for warning notices
notice must enable visitor to be reasonably safe
Cotton V Derbyshire - C fell of cliff, obvious danger so no warning needed
OLA 1957 - what is the rule and case for the DEFENCE of independant contractors
1 - is it reasonable to entrust work to contractor
2 - reasonable steps to ensure contractor was competent
3 - reasonable steps to inspect the work
Haseldine V Daw - engineer didnt fix lift properly, O not liable as reasonable to entrust them
What is OLA 1984, and the case that caused the change
changed due to BRB V Herrington
same rule as OLA 1957 but includes tresspassers
OLA 1984 Steps To Success
intro - O of premises owe duty of care to tresspasers- BRB V Herrington - can claim PI
1 - who is occupier, what are premisies, who is tresspasser
2 - S.1(1) danger must be due to state of premises
3 - Duty to trespassers - was O aware of danger, knowledge of tresspassers, offer some protection from risk
4 - objective standard of care
5 - defences: warning notices, contributory neg, consent
OLA 1984 - Types of tresspassers
no permission
exceeds permission to be there
permission but ventures somewhere prohibited
OLA 1984 - what is the rule and case for s.1(1) - danger must be due to state of premises
O must have done or failed to do something that makes the premises unsafe
Keown - messing around on stairs and injured, O not liable as it was due to behaviour, not state of premises
OLA 1984 - what is part 1 of the 3 part test for D to be liable, and its case - danger
was O aware of the danger
Rhind - containers under lake, O not liable as didnt know about them
OLA 1984 - what is part 2 of the 3 part test for D to be liable, and its case - tresspasser
Did O have knowledge that a tresspasser may enter the premises
time/ day is taken into consideration
Folkestone - dove into harbour at night, O not liable as wouldnt expect ppl to do that at night
OLA 1984 - what is part 3 of the test for D to be liable , and case — protection
the O must offer some protection like signs, but where the danger is obvious they wont be liable
Tomlinson - injured diving into lake after ignoring warning signs, not liable
OLA 1984 - what is the objective standard of care, and examples
duty for C to take reasonable care is decied by objective standard factors. e.g age, nature of premises, degree of danger
What are the 3 defences for OLA 1984
warning notices
contributory negligence
consent
OLA 1984 - What is the rule and case for the defence of warning notices
may need more than a notice if danger is unusual, if not notice is enough
Westwood = went into area not permitted, ignored sign and got injured, defence succeeded
