Occupiers Liability 1957 Flashcards
What legal principle did the case Bailey v Armes set out?
Legal principle: there is no claim if control cannot be established.
What legal principle did the case Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme set out?
Legal principle: there is no claim if reasonable care has been taken.
What legal principle did the case Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell set out?
Legal principle: the occupier has to make the premises reasonably safe, not guarantee safety.
What legal principle did the case Cole v David-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others set out?
Legal principle: the duty does not cover accidents.
What legal principle did the case Glasgow Corporation v Taylor set out?
Legal principle: the occupiers should be aware the allurement may place children at risk.
What legal principle did the case Phipps v Rochester Corporation set out?
Legal principle: the occupier will not be liable if parents should have supervising the children.
What legal principle did the case Jolley v London Borough of Sutton set out?
Legal principle: the standard of care for children children is higher as their behaviour is less predictable.
What legal principle did the case Roles v Nathan set out?
Legal principle: the occupier will not be liable for the harm to tradespeople, have not guarded against know risks.
What legal principle did the case Hazeldine Daw and Son set out?
Legal principle: the occupier may have a defence for harm caused by negligent workmen, if they satisfy the criteria.
What legal principle did the case Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club set out?
Legal principle: the occupier may still be liable for the negligence of workmen if they do not check that the workmen are competent.
What legal principle did the case Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings?
Legal principle: the occupier must check that the workmen had been carried out properly.
