Occupiers' Liability (1957) Flashcards
The Occupiers’ Liabilty Act 1957
Applies to lawful visitors
An occupier is someone who (Case example)
has control over the premises
-Wheat v Lacon 1966
Harris v Birkenhead 1976
No requirement for physical occupation
Premises
s.1(2)
includes land, buildings, houses as well as vehicles and fixed or moveable structures such as lifts, ladders and bouncy castles
A lawful visitor is
someone who has express or implied permission to enter the premises, and those with a contractual or legal right to enter
What can a lawful visitor claim for if they suffer damage due to the state of D’s premises?
Personal injury and property damage
Common duty owed to all lawful visitors
to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose for which he or she is invited to be there
-s.2(2)
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway 2002
s.2(2) shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe, no duty to keep visitors completely safe, only to do what is reasonable in the circumstances
Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016
An occupier is not expected to maintain completely safe premises - visitors can be expected to take reasonable care for their own safety
-state of premises must pose a ‘real source of danger’ which a reasonable person would recognise requires remedial action
s.2(2)
Cole v Davis-Gilbert and others 2007
A duty in respect of a specific risk cannot last forever, where there could be other causes of the damage
s.2(2)
Duty owed to child visitors
s.2(3)(a) provides that an occupier must be prepred for children to be less careful than adults
-Jolley v Sutton LBC 2000
higher standard of care owed because they are an especially vulnerable group
Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955
O is entitled to assume that very young children will be accompanied by someone looking after them, and that may reduce the standard of care expected from the O
s.2(3)(a)
Bourne Leisure v Marsden 2009
Sometimes accidents can occur where neither parent nor occupier is at fault
s.2(3)(a)
Duty owed to professional/skilled visitors
s.2(3)(b) an O may expect that a person in the exercise of his trade will appreciate and guard against any special risks which they ought to know about through their work
Roles v Nathan 1963
Standard of Care is lower
Defences to claim by a lawful visitor
-Independent contractor s.2(4)(b)
-Warning notices s.2(4)(a)
-Exclusion clauses
-Contributory negligence
-Consent (volenti)
Where a visitor is injured due to the danger created by an independent contractor, the occupier has a defence under s.2(4)(b), provided:
-It was reasonable to hire a contractor
-Reasonable precautions were taken to ensure the contractor was competent
-If the nature of work allows, reasonable checks were taken to inspect the work
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club 2003
Warning Notices defence
s.2(4)(a) OL is discharged if he or she gives effective warning of the danger, warning must be sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe
Staples v West Dorset 1995
Danger was so obvious, warning sign wasn’t needed
