Occupiers Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Outline

A

Intro
- if Lawful visitor OLA 1957 applies
- if unlawful OLA 1984 applies
- Possible defences
- conclusion

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

intro

A
  • identify Claimant/Defendant - Defendant must be the ‘occupier’ of ‘premises’
  • danger must arise ‘due to the state of the premises’ geary
  • occupier = control Wheat V Lacon
  • premises widely defined s.1(2) and includes land, building, vehicles fixed and movable structures etc
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Lawful Visitor

A
  • OLA 1957
  • Common duty to all lawful visitors
  • exception for children
  • exceptions for professionals
  • Did D breach duty by failing to act as the reasonable occupier would to keep the lawful visitor safe ?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

common duty of care owed to all lawful visitors

A

s.2(2) take reasonable care to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit (Laverton - took precautions but customer injured -> not completely safe)

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

Children exception (lawful visitor)

A
  • Occupiers must expect children to be less careful than adults s.2(3)a
  • Jolley V Sutton (danger attractive children and some injury forseeeable)
  • Phipps V Rochester (too young to play w/out parent)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Professionals exception

A
  • Occupiers can expect professionals to guard against special risks they ought to know about through their work - S.2(3)(b)
  • Roles V Nathan - (Chimney sweeps poisonous gas should have been aware)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Defences to a claim by a lawful visitor

A
  • Independent contractors
  • Warning Notices
  • Exclusion clauses
  • Contributory negligence
  • Consent(volentii)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

independent contractors LV

A

s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957
- 3 conditions must be met
- reasonable to hire contractor
- reasonable precautions taken to ensure contractor was competent
- If nature of work allows reasonable checks were taken to expect work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cases for defence of independent contractor LV

A
  • Haseldine v Daw (highly specialist)
  • Bottomelly v Todmoren Cricket Club (reasonable care to havve safe & comp)
  • Woodward V Mayor of Hastings (checking work would have revealed obvious danger)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Warning Signs defence LV

A

S.2(4)(a) OLa 1957
- liability discharged if effective warning
- Rae V Morris
(warning sign couldn’t be seen)
- Staples V West Dorset (obvious danger = no need for warning sign)

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

Exclusion Clauses LV

A
  • operate/restict duty arising
  • Applies to Occupiers of residential properties
  • but under Consumer Rights Act 2015 prevents businesses restricting liability for death/PI on their premises
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Contributory negligence (LV)

A
  • consider degree of care from C for own safety -> may reduce compensation required if C partly responsible
  • partial defence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Claimant is a trespasser

A
  • OLA 1984
    -duty not automatic 3 conditions must be met s.1(3)
  • duty
  • has occupier discharged duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

3 conditions to apply duty OLA 1984

A

s.1(3)
- D aware of danger/reasonable grounds to believe it exists (Rhind V Astbury)
- has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is in vicinity of the danger/may come into the vicinity of the danger (Higgs V Foster)
- risk is one against, in all circumstances, occupier can reasonable be expected to offer some protection from (Tomlinson v Congleton)

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

Duty OLA 1984

A

s.1(4) is “to take reasonable care in the
circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by reason of
the danger”.

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

has D discharged duty (UT)

A
  • nature of premises
  • Degree of danger
  • Practicality of taking precautions (inc. financial rss of occupier)
  • age of trespasser (adult should have known better Ratcliff v McConnell0
17
Q

children (UV)

A

premises are dangerous from pov of child not adult -> question of fact and degree

18
Q

defences to an unlawful visitor

A
  • warning signs
  • Contributory negligence
  • consent
19
Q

warning signs (UV)

A

s.1(5) = effective defence
- make danger clear
(westwood v Post Office)
- child depends on age/understanding

20
Q

contributory negligence (UV)

A
  • reduce compensation by an amount judge feels appropriate to reflect Claimants responsibility
21
Q

consent

A

if trespasser appreciates the nature & degree of risk, more than just existence = complete defence