Occupiers Liability 1984 A03 Flashcards
+P1: Wide interpretation of terms occupier + premises fair on CL (case)
Wheat v Lacon CL could choose between managers of the pub or the owner → makes to easier to succeed as CL can choose who is best equipped to provide compensation = fair
-DP1: Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon thought it was fair to blame the occupier who has…
‘control’ even if not directly responsible, suing the person who is ‘best equipped’ for damages might mean the occupier which is unfair as they may have limited control over the actual situation
+WDP1: This unfairness can be sen in Harris v Birkenhead where the council were liable despite the tenant causing the negligence, however… (case)
however Wheat v Lacon clarified the law saying that an occupier can counter-sue if another party was partly responsible which is fair on the occupier
+P2: Despite OLA 1984 being controversial and seemingly unfair allowing trespassers to claim, BRB v Herrington highlighted….
the common duty of humanity being the justification for this, and it is fair and justified as trespassers can only claim in limited circumstances
+DP2: Herrington = public policy decision….
ensures occupiers take greater steps to deter trespassers, justified to hold the railway board accountable as children are likely to trespass and be allured so occupiers need to take social responsibility
+WDP2: HoL decision in Herrington was instrumental in the passing of…
the OLA 1984 which accounts for trespassers, particularly vulnerable people like the child in this case, however the circumstances are limited under s.1(3) which promotes fairness
+P3: Cannot claim if the danger is obvious and the reason for the damage…
fair and justified, doesn’t hold occupiers to unrealistic standards
+DP3: Defence of volenti reduces the liability of occupiers…
and they will not be responsible for people that ignore signs which strikes a fair balance between occupiers and trespassers
+WDP3: Ratcliffe v McConnell - claim failed as…
the trespasser ignored signs and jumped into an empty swimming pool - justified as it would be unreasonable to expect the occupier to pay compensation
+P4: Duty now owed under s.1(3) strikes a fair balance between….
trespassers and occupiers as it places limitations on the claim making it much more restrictive than the OLA 1957 which promotes fairness
+DP4: Whilst the strict limitations on trespasser’s claims could be seen as unfair as it is very hard for the claims to succeed….
it is justified as it balances the views of the public and the law as often trespassers have consented to the risk and know they shouldn’t be there
+WDP4: Tomlinson v Congelton…
the HoL highlighted that the risk arose from CL’s own actions - fair and practical decision, occupiers cannot be expected to protect all trespassers which promotes equality
