occupiers' liability 1957 Flashcards
what are the two acts for occupiers’ liability?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 - covers lawful visitors
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 - covers unlawful visitors
section 1(1) ola 57
provides that an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful visitors with regards to their premises
section 2(1) ola 57
can sue for..
lawful visitors can sue for personal injury and/or property damage suffered on the premises
who is an occupier?
- there is no statutory definition of ‘occupier’
- test for deciding whether someone is the occupier is in case/common law
- the test is one of control
Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)
- manager of pub was given the right to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though he had no ownership rights in the premises
- visitor fell on an unlit staircase and died.
- HoL decided both the manager and his employers could be occupiers under the Act so there could be more than one occupier of the premises
Harris v Birkenhead Corp (1976)
- 4 year old child injured in an empty house
- local council had served a compulsory purchase order on the house but they had not boarded it up or made it secure as they had not yet taken possession.
- held council was the occupier as they were effectively in control of the premises
Bailey v Armes (1999)
- D’s lived in a flat above a supermarket - allowed their son to play on the flat roof above their flat
- supermarket knew nothing of the use of the roof.
- boy’s friend went on roof and was injured when he fell
- CoA held that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were occupiers as they did not have sufficient control over the roof
what does ‘premises’ mean and where is it defined?
there is no full statutory definition of premises except in section 1(3)(a) of the 1957 Act
* it is any ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’
examples of premises + cases
- Ships in dry dock – London Graving Dock v Horton
- Vehicles – Hartwell v Grayson (1947)
- Lifts – Haseldine v Daw & Son (1941)
- A ladder – Wheeler v Copas (1981)
who is a ‘lawful visitor’
this is someone who has permission to enter, and this can either be expressed or implied.
* Invitees – persons with express permission to be there
* Licensees – persons who may have express/implied permission to be on the land for a particular period
* Those with contractual permission – e.g. bought an entry ticket for an event
* Those given a statutory right of entry – e.g. persons such as meter readers or a police constable exercisinga warrant
* entry to communicate
entry to communicate
s.2(1) states…
‘an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his lawful visitors’.
s.2(2) ola 1957
‘a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances… is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’.
can be seen in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
D’s owned a small takeaway shop. They had fitted slip resistant tiles and they used a mop and bucket to mop the floor if it had been raining
C went into the shop and it was very busy and had been raining. She slipped and broke her ankle
CoA held the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe. They don’t have to make the shop completely safe – just do what is reasonable
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others
S.2(3) ola 1957
occupier ‘must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults [and as a result] the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age’
For children, the standard of care is measured subjectively according to the age of the child
Allurement or attraction
The occupier should guard against any kind of ‘allurement or attraction’ which could place a child visitor at risk of harm
Glasgow Corp v Taylor (1922)
Glasgow Corp v Taylor
7 year old child ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park and died
Shrub on which the berried grew was not fenced off in any way. Council were liable to the child’s parents
They were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children
ola 1957 - very young children
Where very young children are injured, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the child should be under supervision of a parent/other adult
Phipps v Rochester Corp (1955)
Phipps v Rochester Corp
5 year old child playing on open ground owned by the council with his 7 year old sister
He fell down a trench and was injured
Court decided that the council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children to go to places which are potentially unsafe
Where an allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if …
Where an allurement exists, there will be no liability on the occupier if the damage or injury is not foreseeable
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
Council had failed to move an abandoned boat which was on its land for 2 years. Children regularly played in the boat and there was a clear potential for danger. 2 boys were playing (aged 14) and jacked up the boat but it fell on one, seriously injuring him
Claim for compensation succeeded in the High Court
CoA disagreed – while the boat was an obvious allurement, the course of action taken by the boys and therefore the specific type of injury was not foreseeable
