Occupiers Liability 3 Flashcards
S2(2) 1957 Act
Take reasonable care for all those visitors who are on premises and make sure they are reasonably safe on the premises for the purposes that they are there
S2(3) 1957 Act
This is where occupier is expected to do something else in regards to reasonableness (either less or more)
2(3)(a) 1957 Act
Children -
Watt v Hertforshire - Racing between stoned wall, should have been smoothed down
Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council - Children sliding down slope into road
Difference between with parents around?
Marsden v Bourne Leisure Ltd - Caravan park neither was liable for child’s death
2(3)(b) 1957 Act
A person in his exercise of calling
Roles v Nathan - Chimney Sweep, one died of poisonous gases
Bamforth v Jones - Ambulance men tripped over books
Discharging common duty of care
2(4)(a) 1957 Act
Warned about the danger but doesn’t absolve unless there is a safe alternative
2(1) Can modify, extend etc liability
2(5) Doesn’t impose liability if visitor willingly accepted risk
4(1)(b) 1957 Act
Damage is caused due to faulty execution of work by independent contractor, not to be treated as more than liable for acting reasonably in entrusting the work to independent contractor
A) reasonable to delegate someone else
B) reasonable care taken in finding person
C) reasonable care in checking work
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals - old lady splat
Bottomley v Tormorden Cricket Club - Fireworks
Overview of liability under 1957 Act
Same duty owed to visitors, contractual entrants and licensees
Duty owed - common law
Breach of duty- common law and act
Breach causes loss - common law BUT 1(3) respect of damages
S1(4) 1984 Act
Duty if care is in all the circumstances of the case to see that visitor does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of danger concerned
S1(4) 1984 v S2(2) 1957
Visitor will not suffer and only reasons they are invited onto the premises 1957
He does not suffer and by reason of danger concerned 1984
Moderated duty of care
Occupiers laiblity to trepassers varies on knowledge, ability and resources - British railways v Herrington
Young v Kent Council - Boy falls through skylight could have easily prevented access
Mann v northern Electric Distribution - no obligation to remove the stuff on premises
Ratcliff v McConnell - Student dived into pool, obvious danger so doubtful they needed to do more than they did
Different duties under 1984 and 1957 Act?
Doesn’t protect all the same interests.
1(8) Doesn’t incur liability for damage to property
1(9) Injury means all personal injury
S2(1) 1960 Act
Brings together language of S2(1)(2) in 1957 Act but concerned with persons entering and imposes liabilty for injury/damage
Titchener v British Railways Board - Hit by train but could have seen it coming, incredibly subjective test
Cowan v Hopetoun House Preservation Trust - Old man bat walk should have stayed away
Difference between England and Scotland
No need to see whether entrant inside scope of Act
No distinction between visitors and contractual entrants
Damages awarded for same types of loss to all entrants
