Occupiers Liability 1984

Question 1

Intro for Occupiers 1984?

Answer 1

C may be able to claim under Occupiers Liability, this is because they have injured themselves on the Ds premises because of the state of it. C is a trespasser form the outset and doesn’t have permission to be on Ds premises.

Question 2

First step?

Answer 2

The defendant must be classed as an occupier and under 1.1(2) this is someone who has occupation and control (Wheat v Lacon). Here, D is an occupier because… (state how D had physical occupation / control)

Question 3

Second step?

Answer 3

The damage must take place on the occupier’s premises. According to s.1(3)(a) as premises is any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. Here, the premises is…

Question 4

Third step?

Answer 4

The OLA 1984 will now be considered as its provisions relate only to trespassers. Here, C is a trespasser from the outset as they don’t have permission to be on the premises because…

Question 5

Fourth step? (duty owed to who?)

Answer 5

s.1 outlines the duty owed to trespassers, ‘injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them’. Duty only applies to injury and not damage to property. Here, the injury is (state what happened to C) and the danger was (explain dangerous nature of premises)

Question 6

Fifth step? (duty of care steps)

Answer 6

D WILL owe a duty of care of all of s1.3 is satisfied.
1) Firstly, D must be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. D is not liable if he is not aware of the danger (Rhind).

2) He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that C is in the vicinity of the danger (or that C might come into the vicinity of danger). An occupier is not liable if there are no reasonable grounds to expect trespassers (Donoghue)

3) The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer some form of protection. Here, protections is / is not appropriate in the circumstance because.
(APPLY ALL)
Therefore, duty of care is / is not satisfied.

Question 7

Sixth step? (standard of care?)

Answer 7

Contained within s.1(4), D is expected to take care that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the non-visitor does NOT suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. The courts decide whether there has been a breach by judging the defendant by the standard of the reasonable occupier.The courts will use risk factors to aid in their decision-making. (apply relevant)

1) Degree of risk
2) Nature of premises
3) The degree of danger
4) The practicality of taking precaution

APPLY THESE IF RELEVANT ALSO
1) D does not have to spend lots of money, only has to take precautions proportionate to risk.
2) No breach if danger is obvious (Ratcliffe v McConnell) If C chooses to take risk claim will fail (Tomlinson)
3) D not liable if trespasser’s behaviour creates the danger.

The trespasser’s age is also relevant, if their age impairs their ability to appreciate danger of premises, D may be expected to take more care. However, if they do still understand risk, but take it anyway, D not liable (Keown)

Therefore, C has / has not fallen below the reasonable occuper because
(describe relevant risk factors)

Question 8

Final step?

Answer 8

If C has taken reasonable steps in the circumstances to prevent C coming into contact with danger, C not liable. If this is a warning sign, it must be clear in its terms but unlikely to be effective for a child. (Westwood).

As D has tried to warn C of danger,… D may / may not be liable.