OCCUPIERS LIABILITY 1984

Question 1

OLA 1984 WAS PASSED AFTER…

Answer 1

RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LAW COMMISSION AND DECISION MADE IN
(BRITISH RAILWAYS V HERRINGTON)

Question 2

UNLAWFUL VISITOR MEANS…

Answer 2

PEOPLE WHO GO ONTO PREMISES WITHOUT PERMISSION
trespassers, those lawfully exercising a right to roam and those exercising a private right of way

Question 3

WHO IS A TRESPASSER?

Answer 3

A PERSON WHO HAS ENTERED THE PREMISES WITHOUT PERMISSION OR REMAINED ON THE PREMISES ONCE PERMISSION HAS EXPIRED OR BEEN WITHDRAWN
(ADDIE V DUMBRECK)

Question 4

ITS POSSIBLE TO BECOME A TRESPASSER IN SPECIFIC PARTS

Answer 4

(TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL)

Question 5

DUTY OF CARE?

Answer 5

(S1(1a))
occupier will owe a duty of care to persons other than visitors
applies to any risk of a trespasser suffering injury on the premises because of any danger on the premises and things done or omitted on the premises

law acknowledges that trespassers should have lesser rights can claim for only personal injury and cannot claim for property damages or pure economic loss

Question 6

CLAIM CAN FAIL IF PREMISES IS NOT FOUND TO BE DANGEROUS

Answer 6

(KEOWN V COVENTRY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST)

Question 7

EXTENT OF DUTY OWED TO TRESPASSER?

Answer 7

DUTY TO TRESPASSER WILL ONLY EXIST IF ALL REQUIREMENTS IN (S1(3)) ARE MET
- THE OCCUPIER IS AWARE OF THE DANGER OR HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THE DANGER EXISTS
- KNOWS OR HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRESPASSER IS IN THE VICINITY OF THE DANGER OR WILL COME INTO THE DANGER AT SOME POINT
- THE RISK IS ONE WHICH THE OCCUPIER WILL BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO OFFER THE OTHER SOME PROTECTION FROM

Question 8

STANDARD OF CARE OWED TO TRESPASSER?

Answer 8

(S1(4))
TO TAKE SUCH CARE AS IS REASONABLE IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO SEE THAT THE OTHER DOES NOT SUFFER INJURY ON THE PREMISES BECAUSE OF DANGER CONCERNED

COURT WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FACTORS SUCH AS AGE OF TRESPASSER, EXTENT OF RISK, PACTICABILITY OF PRECAUTIONS AND NATURE OF PREMISES
while factors personal to the defendant are not considered and do not form part of all circumstances

Question 9

IN… CIRCUMSTANCES NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED WERE THE TIME OF YEAR THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURED AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE ANYONE WILL BE SWIMMING THERE

Answer 9

(DONOGHUE V FOLKESTONE PROPERTIES)

Question 10

IN…THE RISK OF HARM WAS OBVIOUS AND DEFENDANT HAD DONE EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO DEAL WITH IT

Answer 10

(RATCLIFFE V MCCONNELL)

Question 11

EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY ARGUMENT FOR OLA 84

Answer 11

unlike the 1957 Act the 1984 Act does not say that the duty to take reasonable care can be excluded
this has led to some academics suggesting that exclusion is possible since the act does not say that exclusion is possible.
however, others suggest it is not possible to exclude liability as the 84 Act reflects the common duty to humanity which is the minimum standard below which occupiers cannot fall

Question 11

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Answer 11

THIS PROVIDES A PARTIAL DEFENCE AND DAMAGES WILL BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY AS CLAIMANT WILL HAVE CONTRIBUTED IN SOME WAY TO HARM SUFFERED
(YOUNG V KENT COUNTY COUNCIL)

Question 11

WARNINGS

Answer 11

(S1(5))
OCCUPIER WILL FULFILL THEIR DUTY TO A TRESPASSER BY TAKING REASONABLE STEPS TO GIVE A WARNING OF SPECIFIC DANGER OR DISCOURAGING THEM FROM TAKING SPECIFIC RISKS RELATED TO DANGER
(TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL)

Question 12

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

Answer 12

(S1(6))
NO DUTY OWED TO SOMEONE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE RISK OF KNOWN DANGER

(RATCLIFFE V MCCONNELL)
(TITCHENER V BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD)