occupiers liability 1957 Flashcards
wheat v lacon and co ltd
FACTS
d were brewers that owned a pub. c and her husband were lodgers at the pub. cs husband fell to his death on the stairs that had a missing lightbulb and rail
wheat v lacon and co ltd
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
there may be more than one occupier, an occupier is anyone with possesion/control
harris v birkenhead corporation
FACTS
a 4 year old child was injured in empty house - it wasnt boarded up. Council hadnt taken possession of it but was still liable as effectively in control
harris v birkenhead corporation
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
there doesnt need to be physical occupation to be classed as an occupier
bailey v armes
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
if its impossible to find out who has control over an area then there will no longer be an occupier
laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
FACTS
a girl slipped on wet floor but the shop had acted reasonably by installing slip resistant tiles etc to keep reasonably safe so wasnt liable
laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure customers where safe, not liable - didnt have to make shop completely safe.
state of premises must pose real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk of damage can be found
dean and chapter of rochester cathedral v debell
FACTS
c injured himself when he tripped and fell over small lump of concrete protruding about 2 inches from base of traffic bollard in area of cathedral, bollard had previously been damaged by a car
dean and chapter of rochester cathedral v debell
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
only be in breach where it is reasonably foreseeable that there is a reasonable source of danger so that reasonable man would think occupier needs to take action
cole v davis gilbert and the royal british legion
FACTS
here c injured her ankle when she stepped into a hole left on the village green by a maypole.
cole v davis gilbert and the royal britsh legion
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
‘accidents happen’ court of appeal held that the duty wont extend to pure accidents
there had been no breach of duty
glasgow corporation v taylor
FACTS
s even year old ate poisonous berries in a botanical garden and died. shrubs which the berries grew on werent fenced off - council liable for not fencing off in public park, should expect child may be attracted to the berries
glasgow corporation v taylor
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
warning sufficient for adults may not be sufficient for children. occupier should guard against any allurement that might place a child at risk
phipps v rochester corporation
FACTS
5 year old injured after falling down a trench dug by d where children frequently played.
d not liable as parents should have child under supervison
phipps v rochester corporation
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
occupier is entitled to assume that very small children will be accompanied by adults
bourne lesiure v marsden
FACTS
2 1/2 year old boy drowned in a pond on a holiday park whilst under the care of his parents. parents sought to claim occupiers liability against park. arguing the pond should have a barrier
not liable - clear dnager
roles v nathan
FACTS
two chimney sweeps were killed by carbon monoxide gas whilst attempting to seal up a sweep hole in the chimney of a coke filled boiler, the boiler being alight
roles v nathan
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
an occupier can reasonably expect a skilled labourer to guard against risks associated with his profession
haseldine v daw and sons
FACTS
c was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of the shaft. landlord agreed with a company to maintain lift every month and report any issues
haseldine v daw and sons
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
lift work = specialist activity, reasonable to give work to specialist firm. occupier not liable
bottomley v todmorden cricket club
FACTS
cricket club hired 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 someone who was unpaid and no experience. c was burnt and broke an arm when stunt went wrong, stunt team had no insurance
bottomley v todmorden cricket club
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
liable as failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors
woodward v the mayor of hastings
FACTS
child was injured on icy school steps after snow had been cleared of them
woodward v the mayor of hastings
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
liable, failed to take reasonable steps to check work had been done properly, danger shouldve been obvious to them
rae v marrs (UK) ltd
FACTS
involved in a deep pit inside a dark shed so a warning sign itself was insufficient as it couldnt be seen - ds liable
rae v marrs (UK) ltd
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
where danger is extreme or unusual its not enough for there to be a warning or barrier or additional notice should be placed
English heritage v taylor
FACTS
c was visiting an english heritage site when he was walking along a grass slope when he fell off the slope into a dry moat causing serious injuries. There was no warning sign of the 12ft moat
