occupiers liability 1957

Question 1

wheat v lacon and co ltd
FACTS

Answer 1

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

Question 2

wheat v lacon and co ltd
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 2

there may be more than one occupier, an occupier is anyone with possesion/control

Question 3

harris v birkenhead corporation
FACTS

Answer 3

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

Question 4

harris v birkenhead corporation
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 4

there doesnt need to be physical occupation to be classed as an occupier

Question 5

bailey v armes
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 5

if its impossible to find out who has control over an area then there will no longer be an occupier

Question 6

laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
FACTS

Answer 6

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

Question 7

laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 7

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

Question 8

dean and chapter of rochester cathedral v debell
FACTS

Answer 8

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

Question 9

dean and chapter of rochester cathedral v debell
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 9

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

Question 10

cole v davis gilbert and the royal british legion
FACTS

Answer 10

here c injured her ankle when she stepped into a hole left on the village green by a maypole.

Question 11

cole v davis gilbert and the royal britsh legion
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 11

‘accidents happen’ court of appeal held that the duty wont extend to pure accidents
there had been no breach of duty

Question 12

glasgow corporation v taylor
FACTS

Answer 12

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

Question 13

glasgow corporation v taylor
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 13

warning sufficient for adults may not be sufficient for children. occupier should guard against any allurement that might place a child at risk

Question 14

phipps v rochester corporation
FACTS

Answer 14

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

Question 15

phipps v rochester corporation
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 15

occupier is entitled to assume that very small children will be accompanied by adults

Question 16

bourne lesiure v marsden
FACTS

Answer 16

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

Question 17

roles v nathan
FACTS

Answer 17

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

Question 18

roles v nathan
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 18

an occupier can reasonably expect a skilled labourer to guard against risks associated with his profession

Question 19

haseldine v daw and sons
FACTS

Answer 19

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

Question 20

haseldine v daw and sons
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 20

lift work = specialist activity, reasonable to give work to specialist firm. occupier not liable

Question 21

bottomley v todmorden cricket club
FACTS

Answer 21

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

Question 22

bottomley v todmorden cricket club
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 22

liable as failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors

Question 23

woodward v the mayor of hastings
FACTS

Answer 23

child was injured on icy school steps after snow had been cleared of them

Question 24

woodward v the mayor of hastings
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 24

liable, failed to take reasonable steps to check work had been done properly, danger shouldve been obvious to them

Question 25

rae v marrs (UK) ltd
FACTS

Answer 25

involved in a deep pit inside a dark shed so a warning sign itself was insufficient as it couldnt be seen - ds liable

Question 26

rae v marrs (UK) ltd
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Answer 26

where danger is extreme or unusual its not enough for there to be a warning or barrier or additional notice should be placed

Question 27

English heritage v taylor
FACTS

Answer 27

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