Occupiers’ liability (2.2.3)

Question 1

Explain the case of Donohue v Folkestone Properties 2003 in relation to the OLA 1984

Answer 1

Details: Claimant was trespassing during winter at night, dived into the harbour and was injured due to hitting a grid pile, visible at low tide
Outcome: Occupier did not owe duty of care as they would not expect a trespasser may be present and jump into the harbour at that time of night/year

Question 2

How did Thomlinson become a trespasser in the case of Thomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003, regarding OLA 1984?

Answer 2

Details: Council owned a park, activities permitted in certain areas of the lake, but no swimming was allowed (signs up), Thomlinson dived in and regardless and broke his neck
Outcome: He was a visitor, but became a trespasser when he entered the lake as he was aware that he was not permitted to do so

Question 3

Explain the case of Rhind v Astbury water park 2004 in regards to OLA 1984

Answer 3

Details: Occupier did not know of submerged fibreglass container at the bottom of a lake, claimant ignored private property/no swimming notice and was injured
Outcome: As the occupier was not aware of the dangerous objects, no duty of care was owed

Question 4

Explain how the OLA 1984 was introduced as a result of the case of British Railways Board v Herrington 1972

Answer 4

Details: 6 year old trespassed onto an electrified railway line and was burned, British rail was aware of gaps in the protective fencing
Outcome: HofL established a duty of ‘common humanity’ and the OLA 1984 was introduced

Question 5

Describe the case of Ratcliff v McConnell 1999 in regards to adult trespassers and OLA 1984

Answer 5

Details: 19 year old climbed fence of his open air college pool at night, dived in and severely hit his head
Outcome: No duty of care owed as the occupier was not required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury from obvious dangers

Question 6

Explain Keown v Coventry healthcare NHS trust 2006 in regards to child trespassers and OLA 1984

Answer 6

Details: 11year old climbed a fire escape to show off and fell
Outcome: Since the child appreciated the danger, it was not the state of the premises that was at fault - hospital was not liable

Question 7

Describe the case of Westwood v Post Office 1973 in relation to the OLA 1984

Answer 7

Details: claimant was an employee at post office who entered (trespassed) into a room for authorised people and was injured
Outcome: Defendants were not liable as the notice was a sufficient warning to an adult