Occupiers' Liability

Question 1

Wheat v E Lacon

Answer 1

Two potential occupiers had control of the pub: manager and brewery.

Question 2

Collier v Anglian Water Authority

Answer 2

Two potential occupiers with control of different aspects of the sea wall.

Question 3

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

Answer 3

Child fell out of window; council didn’t have to be living there to be the occupier.

Question 4

Lowery v Walker

Answer 4

Public had implied license to go through field after using it as a shortcut for many years.

Question 5

Fryer v Pearson

Answer 5

No breach of duty for needle in knee as it was unforeseeable.

Question 6

Moloney v Lambeth

Answer 6

Take more care with children; fell through railings that an adult wouldn’t have fit through.

Question 7

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 7

Child died after eating berries from bush; held as allurement so council should’ve taken more care.

Question 8

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Answer 8

Boy broke leg on building site; occupiers entitled to expect parents to look after very young children.

Question 9

Roles v Nathan

Answer 9

Chimney sweeps should’ve known to turn off boilers so couldn’t claim for harm.

Question 10

Salmon v Seafarers Restaurants

Answer 10

Firefighter had taken enough precautions but still not protected from chip shop explosion.

Question 11

Haseldine v Daw & Sons

Answer 11

Occupier not expected to check lift - too technical/specialist.

Question 12

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

Answer 12

Child slipped on icy school steps; the school could’ve inspected & done work themselves.

Question 13

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust

Answer 13

Not reasonable to keep checking insurance of contractor’s splat wall.

Question 14

Rae v Mars

Answer 14

General warning sign not enough to guard against risk of falling down hole inside shed.

Question 15

White v Blackmore

Answer 15

Jalopy racer had not accepted the risk of being catapulted by spectator ropes, so no volenti.

Question 16

BRB v Herrington

Answer 16

Overruled past cases so BRB owed duty to child trespasser burnt on railway lines.

Question 17

Higgs v Foster

Answer 17

Occupier had no reason to suspect police officer trespassing in coach park, so not liable.

Question 18

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Answer 18

Occupier not liable as they had no knowledge of dangerous container buried in lake bed.

Question 19

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 19

C not injured due to state of lake (not particularly dangerous) so no claim.

Question 20

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Answer 20

Boat was allurement and foreseeable risk, so council should’ve moved it.

Question 21

Harris v Perry

Answer 21

Reasonable parent would only guard against foreseeable risks on bouncy castle.

Question 22

Bourne Leisure v Marsden

Answer 22

Both occupier and parent acted reasonably so no one was at fault.

Question 23

Simkiss v Rhonda BC

Answer 23

Don’t have to guard against every danger if obvious - don’t need to fence off a mountain!

Question 24

Addie v Dumbreck

Answer 24

No duty for child trespassers, now OVERRULED.

Question 25

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 25

Swimming pool signs were enough for intelligent college student to avoid dive, so not liable.

Question 26

Keown v Coventry NHS Trust

Answer 26

Fire escape wasn't dangerous; the boy made it dangerous by falling off it.

Question 27

English Heritage v Taylor

Answer 27

Hidden drop to moat needed more of a warning, but C was contributory negligent for not scooching.

Question 28

Who is considered the occupier under Section 1(2) OLA 1957?

Answer 28

The occupier is the one with occupation or control of the premises.

Question 29

What does Section 2(1) OLA 1957 state about visitors?

Answer 29

Visitors are owed a common duty of care, but it can be restricted or excluded.

Question 30

What is required under Section 2(2) OLA 1957 regarding visitor safety?

Answer 30

Must take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe.

Question 31

What does Section 2(3)(a) OLA 1957 specify about children on premises?

Answer 31

Must take more care when children are on premises.

Question 32

What responsibility do tradesmen have according to Section 2(3)(b) OLA 1957?

Answer 32

Tradesmen should take guard against risks found in their job.

Question 33

What does Section 2(4)(a) OLA 1957 require regarding warning signs?

Answer 33

Warning signs must be specific to allow visitors to stay safe.

Question 34

What does Section 2(4)(b) OLA 1957 state about liability and independent contractors?

Answer 34

Can shift liability to independent contractors for harm caused by poor work.

Question 35

What does Section 2(5) OLA 1957 say about visitor consent?

Answer 35

Visitors are consenting if they understood and accepted the risks, no liability.

Question 36

What can trespassers claim under Section 1(1)(a) OLA 1984?

Answer 36

Trespassers can claim, but for personal injury only.

Question 37

What conditions must be met for a duty breach under Section 1(3) OLA 1984?

Answer 37

Duty breached if paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are met.

Question 38

What does Section 1(4) OLA 1984 require regarding trespassers?

Answer 38

Must take reasonable care in all the circumstances to prevent harm to trespassers.

Question 39

What is required of warning signs for trespassers under Section 1(5) OLA 1984?

Answer 39

Warning signs must be specific to warn trespassers of the risks.

Question 40

What does Section 1(6) OLA 1984 state about consent for trespassers?

Answer 40

Consenting if trespasser knows and willingly accepts risk, no liability.