Occupiers Liability Flashcards
Wheat v Lacon
An occupier is someone with enough control of the premises
S1(3)(a) 1957
A premise is land or buildings including fixed or moveable structures
S1(1)(a) 1984
A trespasser is anyone who is not a lawful visitor and does not have permission to be on the premises
S2(1) 1957
D owes a common duty of care to all lawful visitors
S2(2) 1957
D must take steps as is reasonable in the case to keep C reasonably safe
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme/Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
D does not need to guarantee C is safe, just keep them reasonably safe
Bolton v Stone/Miller v Jackson
The reasonable man will take less/more precautions against a small risk of harm
Paris v SBC
The reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious
Paris v SBC/Latimer v AEC
If taking precautions is cheap, quick and easy, the reasonable man will more likely take precautions
Watt v HCC
The reasonable man will take a risk if the potential benefit to be gained outweighs the risk
S2(3)(a) 1957
D must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
Glasgow Corporation V Taylor
D fails the duty to children when they do not take steps to prevent risks obviously enticing children
Jolley v Sutton
The damage to children must be foreseeable from the allurement
Phipps v Rochester
D can assume that parents will not let very young children go to dangerous places alone
S2(3)(b) 1957
A person carrying out a trade/calling should be able to protect themselves from risks which are normally a part of their job
Roles v Nathan
Professionals are owed less care for risks part of their profession
S2(1) 1957
A residential occupier may exclude liability via a sign/ticket/term in a contract
S2(4)(a) 1957/Rae v Mars
A complete defence where D has given a warning that ‘in all circumstances, would enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
S2(4)(b) 1957
An occupier is not at fault for the work of an independent contractor if:
Haseldine v Daw
It was reasonable for the occupier to give the work to an independent contractor
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
D made sure the contractor hired is competent to carry out the task
Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
The occupier must check the work has been done properly
S1(3) 1984
An occupier only owes a duty to trespassers under 3 conditions:
S1(3)(a) 1984
The occupier shows he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
S1(3)(b) 1984/Swain v Natui
The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity or may come into the vicinity of the danger
S1(3)(c) 1984/Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
The risk is one D may be expected to offer some protection against
S1(4) 1984
D must take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to keep C safe from danger
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
The same rules apply to child trespassers as they do to adult trespassers
S1(5) 1984/Westwood v Post Office
If D can show he has taken such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to give a warning of the danger, or to discourage trespassers from taking the risk, this will be a complete defence
S1(8) 1984
Cannot be ordered to pay damages for propery damage
