Occupiers Liability 1984

Question 1

What does s1 (3)a state in the OLA 1984

Answer 1

It tests for whether there is a DOC owed to a trespasser:

• whether the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable reason to believe one exists
• whether O knows if has reasonable grounds to believe the T is in the vicinity of danger
• Whether the occupier in all reasonable circumstances has reason to believe a Danger exists

Question 2

Harris v Birkenhead corp

Answer 2

The ignorance of danger does extinguish a DOC

Question 3

What does s1(1) of the OLA 1984 state

Answer 3

That an occupier owes DOC to people other than his visitors

Question 4

What does S1(4) state in relation to the standard of care

Answer 4

The duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances of the case to see that the other person doesn’t suffer injury due to the state of the premises

Question 5

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 5

Where O had taken reasonable steps to prevent injury by installing warning signs and other preventative procedures

Question 6

How does time and year effect an occupiers duty

Answer 6

Donoghue v Folkestone - it was winter and d has gone into the sea and slipped leaving them injured. However the claim failed under s1(3) as the occupier had no reason to believe anyone would be near the sea in winter and a night

Question 7

Tomlinson v Congleton council

Answer 7

C jumped into quarry and broke their neck O not found liable as they had installed warning signs, hired a ranger and imposing duty would earn many other places similar to this quarry would have to close, public benefit

Question 8

An occupier is not liable where there is no reason to believe anyone would be in the area

Answer 8

Higgs v Foster- investigating an area at night and fell. D had no reason to believe anyone would be in the vicinity of danger

Question 9

When an occupier is not aware of the danger

Answer 9

Rhind v Astbury water park 2004- 19 year old ignored private property signs and was paralysed after diving into a lake, no liability S1(3)

Question 10

Child trespassers

Answer 10

NO DIFFERENTIATION between children and adult trespassers

Question 11

Keown v Coventry healthcare

Answer 11

C had fallen after falling off ladder on Os property. J found that C understood the risks and so no liability (also an element of public interest)

Question 12

Baldacchino v West wittering

Answer 12

14 yr old dived off a metal beacon becoming paralysed. Diving into shallow water was an obvious danger, no liability

Question 13

Defences to a claim

Answer 13

• contributory negligence
• consent
• precautionary measures

Question 14

Evaluation (children)

Answer 14

Within the OLA 1984 there is no consideration for child trespassers and there lack of appreciation for risk.