OCCUPIERS LIABILITY 1984 P1-SB Flashcards
Define OLA 1984
Protects trespassers who have been injured as a result of the state of the premises
Define the Occupier + case
A person who may but doesn’t have to be the owner or tenant of the premises. The person who is in control of the premises (Wheat V E Lacon)
Define the Premises + case
A person having occupation or control of any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or air craft. (Wheeler V Copas)
Explain S1(1)(a) + case
A duty applies towards people other than lawful visitors. The O will not be liable if the trespassers in injured by an obvious danger. (Ratcliff V McConnell)
Explain S1(3)(a) + case
The O will only owe a duty of care under S1(3). O are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. (Rhind V Astbury)
Explain S1(3)(b) + case
The O knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other persons in the vicinity of danger or could come to danger (Higgs V Foster)
Explain S1(3)(c) + case
They may be expected to protect the other person against the risk (Thomlinson V Congleton)
1. To succeed a claim, there has to be a danger due to the state of the premises.
2. Trespassers had to take some responsibility for their actions.
3. Not reasonable for council to spend lots of money preventing visitors suffering injuries from an obvious danger
Explain S1(4) + case
The duty is to take such care as its reasonable in all circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. (Donoghue V Folkestone)
Explain age of trespasser + case
Under the 1984 act Judges approach child visitors the same as adult visitors ( Keown V Coventry)
Explain Cost of safe guarding oblivious danger
An O doesn’t have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers
DEFENCES: Explain S1(5)
O can discharge his duty to the trespasser by giving a warning of the danger or discouraging the risk (Westwood V post office)
DEFENCES: Explain the Law Reform act 1945
Its a partial defence. The O will argue that the C is partly responsible for their injuries if successful the amount of compensation will be reduced to an appropriate amount
DEFENCES: Explain S1(6)
No duty is owed to anyone who is willing to accept risks willingly
DEFENCES: Explain S65 Consumer rights act 2015
An occupier cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death.
