OCCUPIERS LIABILITY 1957 Flashcards
LAWFUL VISITORS
What does S1 (3) (A) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
‘the rules so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law to an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensees would apply to regulate - (a) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’
what does S2 (1) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
‘an occupier of premises owes the common duty of care to all his visitors except in so far as he free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise’
what does S2 (2) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
‘the common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor with be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’
what does S2 (3) (A) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
‘an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’
what does S2 (3) (B) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
an occupier can expect a person in the exercise of his calling to appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinary incident to it’
what does S2 (4) (A) of the occupiers liabi8lity act 1957 state? (1)
a warning my discharge the duty of care
what does S2 (4) (B) of the occupiers liability act 1957 state? (1)
the occupier is not liable for the fault of an independent contractor provided he or she acted reasonably in entrusting the work to a contractor and took reasonable step to ensure that the contractor was competent and the work was properly carried out.
what are the two key statutes of the occupiers liability? (2)
-the occupiers liability act 1957
-the occupiers liability act 1984
what is the test for occupiers liability? (1)
The test to be applied is ‘occupational control’
what is the ‘occupational control’ test in simple terms? (1)
Who has control over the premises?
what case did the occupational control stem from? (1)
Wheat v E Lacon and co. Ltd (1966)
what principles came from the case Wheat v E Lacon and co. Ltd (1966)? (4)
-if a landlord lets premises then the tenant will be the occupier
-if a landlord who lets the part of a building retains certain areas then the landlord will be the occupier in respect of those areas
-if an owner licenses a person to use premises but reverses the right to entry then the owner remains the occupier
-if contractors are employed to carry out work on premises the owner will generally remain the occupier although there may be circumstances where the contractor could be the occupier (where the original occupier is not allowed on the premises)
who is classified as a lawful visitor? (1)
under common law a visitor is a person who has expressed or implied permission to enter the premises.
who else are classified as lawful visitors under the occupiers liability act 1957? (1)
persons who have a right to enter premises conferred by law (e.g firefighters and police officers)
what cases come under the ‘reasonable’ test? (2)
-Glasgow corporation v Muir (1946)
-Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway supreme (2002)
what are the principles of the Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway supreme? (4)
the defendant owned a takeaway shop and had installed slip resistant tiles, one day they had mopped when it was raining, in a rush the claiment entered and broke her ankle. court of appeal decided the owner was not liable as they had taken reasonable care to ensure customers safe. they were not liable (as they did not have to make the shop completely safe)
what cases cover children under the occupiers liability act 1957? (2)
-Phipps v Rochester corporation (1955)
-Glasgow corporation v Taylor (1922)
what are the principles of the case; Phipps v Rochester corporation (1955)? (3)
a 5 year old child was playing on open ground owned by the council with his 7 year old sister. he fell down a trench and was injured. Court decided council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect parents to not allow children anywhere unsafe.
what are the principles of the case; Glasgo2w corporation v Taylor (1922)? (3)
a 7 year old ate poisonous berries from a shrub in a public park and died. the shrub was not fenced off, the council was liable to the children’s parents. it was aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children.
what cases are used for deciding when someone is an occupier? (3)
-Wheat v E Lacon and co Ltd (1966)
-Harris v Birkenhead corporation (1976)
-Bailey v Armes (1999)
what occurred in the case of Harris v Birkenhead corporation (1976)? (3)
a four year old child was injured in an empty house. The local council had served a compulsory purchase order on the house but it had not boarded it up or make it secure. it was decided it was in occupation as it was effectively in control of the premises.
what occurred in the case of Bailey v Armes (1999)?
The defendants lived in a flat above a supermarket. They allowed their son to climb out of a window to play on the roof but forbade him to take anyone else there. the supermarket knew nothing. The boy took his friend onto the roof and was injured when he fell from the roof. The court decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were liable.
What cases relate to warning notices? (2)
Rae v Marrs (UK) Ltd (1990)
Staples v west Dorset district council (1995)
What cases are used for deciding when someone is an occupier? (3)
Wheat v E Lacon and co Ltd (1966)
Harris v Birkenhead corporation (1976)
Bailey v Armes (1999)
What occurred in the case roles v Nalhan (1963)? (3)
Two chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while clearing a chimney of a coke-free boiler. The sweeps had been warned of the danger. The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of the particular danger.
What case relates to occupiers liability to people carrying out a trade or calling? (1)
Roles v Nalhan (1963)
What are the defences to occupiers liability claims? (3)
Consent
Contributory negligence
Warning notices
What case relates to competence of independent contractors? (1)
Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club (2003)
What case relates to occupiers liability for the torts of independent contractors? (3)
Haseldine v Daw and son Ltd (1941)
Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club (2003)
Woodward v the mayor of Hastings (1945)
What case relates to being reasonable in terms of independent contractors? (1)
Haseldine v Daw and son Ltd (1941)
What is contributory negligence? (1)
The court will rule that the claimant is partly responsible for the injuries he or she has suffered. If successfully argued, the amount of compensation will be reduced by a certain amount.
What occurred in the case Woodward v the mayor of Hastings (1945)? (3)
A child was injured on school steps that were left icy after snow had been cleared off them. The occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that they work had been done properly, and the danger had been obvious to them.
What case relates to checking the work of independent contractors? (1)
Woodward v the mayor of Hastings (1945)
What occurred in the case Haseldine v Daw and son Ltd (1941)? (2)
Claiment was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft. The occupier was not liable for negligent repair or maintenance of the lift as this work is highly a specialist activity and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm.
What occurred in the case staples v west Dorset district council (1995)? (1)
The danger of wet algae on a high wall should have been obvious and no further warning was required.
What occurred in the case Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club (2003)? (4)
Cricket club hired a stunt team to carry out a firework display. The team chose to use ordinary gun powder, petrol and propane gas rather than traditional fireworks. They used the claimant for the stunt, the claimant was burnt and broke an arm when the stunt went wrong. They had no insurance, the court of appeal decided the club were liable as they failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors.
What occurred in the case are v Marrs (uk) Ltd (1990)? (1)
The premises was a deep pit inside a dark shed so a warming by itself was insufficient.
