Occupiers Liability (1957) Flashcards
The Act that covers liability to visitors?
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957)
The Act that covers non-visitors i.e. trespassers
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984)
Premises covered by s1(3) OLA 1957
Land
Buildings
Structures, both fixed and moveable
Vessels, vehicles and aircrafts
An occupier is a person that has
Sufficient control of the premises to be able to foresee that people coming onto the premises could be injured by the state of the property.
The definition cannot be found in their the 1957 or 1948 Act it can be found in case law.
Wheat v Lacon (1966)
More than one person can be in control of the same premises.
Problem questions will not identify who the occupier is of the premises.
It is important to start a problem question by identifying who the occupier is and also the relevant premises.
You then need to establish whether the injured person is a visitor or a non-visitor.
OLA 1957 introduced the word visitor and it refers to…
Invitees, including those entering the property under a contract (s5 OLA 1957) and Maguire v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 2006.
Licensees, both express and implied.
Those entering under a right conferred by law (s2(6) OLA 1957) e.g. police and firefighters. Note also the effect of s13 Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000.
A duty of care is owed to any lawful visitor (s2(1))
The duty of care is defined in s2(2)
The occupier should take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.
Laverton v Kiapisha (2002)
Children: an occupier can expect that children take less care for their own safety than that of an adult. s2(3)(a) OLA 1957
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
An occupier must take extra care in respect of lawful children unless they are too young that its parents can be expected to exercise control over the child
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
Skilled contractors
An occupier can expect a contractor to exercise the skill appropriate to his calling
S2(3)(b) OLA 1957
If there is a risk of death associated with the work done by a contractor then the occupier can expect the contractor to guard against that risk by taking reasonable precautions. This does not apply to general risks which apply to all visitors
Roles v Nathan (1963)
Warnings:
A warning itself does not absolve an occupiers liability, unless it enables the visitor to be safe s2(4)(a) OLA (1957)
A sign which merely states danger! Is not enough, but one which informs the visitor how to avoid the danger would suffice. Roles v Nathan
There is no need to warn against obvious danger
Darby v National Trust (2001)
Liability for independent contractors.
If harm is caused to a visitor by an independent contractor engaged by the occupier, the occupier is not liable if he has acted reasonably in entrusting the work to a contractor and has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the contractor is competent and that the work has been properly carried out.
S2(4)(b) OLA 1957.
the more complex the work, the more reasonable it will be to employ a contractor and less reasonable to check if the work has been carried out correctly.
Haseldine v Daw (1941)
But instead have the work checked professionally, i.e. an architect.
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust (2002)
Where an independent contractor does owe a visitor a duty of care…
The neighbourhood principle set out in Donoghue v Stevenson would apply.
The damage…
A claim for compensation can include death, personal injury and property damage
Defences
Volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk of injury) and
Contributory negligence.
