Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What are the two statutes relating to occupiers liability?
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
Why was the OLA 1957 passed?
Common law rules were unsatisfactory-particularly the category of trespassers who would try to argue they had been granted an implied licence to be on occupiers premises.
The common law offered varying degrees of protection according to who you were. Highest protection awarded to a contractual entrant then invitee, the licensee with the little protection for trespasser.
What changes were made under the 1957 Act?
It doesn’t cover trespassers
Licenses and invitees now called ‘visitors’
Contractual entrants still separate but not given highest degree if there contract is silent then the occupier owes the same duty as required under the ola 1957
Before the OLA 1957 what types of duties did the courts recognise an occupier could owe?
1-occupancy duty-accidents due to condition of the premises
2-activity duty-things done on the occupiers premises
Who is defined as an ‘occupier’?
No statutory definition but is the person who exercises an element of control over premises. Wheat v E Lacon and Co Ltd 1966 ( found there can be more than 1 occupier at the same time)
What is determined to be ‘premises’?
Section 1(3) OLA 1957 takes a wide approach to what premises constitutes and covers land and buildings and‘ any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft (applies to ladders!)
Under the OLA 1957 who is considered a lawful visitor?
The OLA seeks to protect visitors entering the occupiers premises and includes Section 1(6) added the category of visitor which includes invitees, licensee(had permission to enter) and those executing a right granted by law (police, fire)
However a person may be enter the premises as a visitor but cease to be classed as a visitor if they exceed the terms of that permission
Tomlinson v Congleton (2003)(seriously injured after diving into a shallow lake that was not allowed)-seen as a trespasser-no Liability.
What is the duty owed by the occupier under the OLA 1957?
Section 2 (2) ‘Take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’
So it is a negligence type duty to take steps to repair and warn
It is also an objective duty to ensure premises are reasonably safe
Are children treated the same as adults regarding occupiers duty?
No, Section 2(3)a, required occupiers to treat children with special interest and to be prepared that children may be less careful than adults. This is relevant in determining if they would be considered a visitor
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
Child died after eating poisonous berries in a botanical garden, it wasn’t fenced off and did not have warning signs. Found liable as seen as an allurement to children entering premises.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955
5 year old Child fell down trench dug by council on land being developed.
Court adopted the prudent parent principle to balance the the responsibility between the occupier being careful to the parents responsibility to control the safety of their children and not let them wander unsupervised. Not liable as defendant could not foresee the risk to child.
Bourne Leisure v Marsdon (2009)
2 year old drowned in a pond on a holiday park. He had wandered off and climbed over the small fence . No liability as it was an obvious risk to adults and a child of that age should have been supervised.
What is the purpose of the OLA 1957?
S1 (1)’‘ to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them’
Which section covers who an occupier may be?
S1(2) no statutory definition but an occupier will be determined by who exercises an element of control ( do not personally have to be on the land)
What is the extent to the occupiers duty?
S2(1) states an occupier owes a ‘common duty of care’ to all visitors
EXCEPT
In so far as he is free to extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor.
An occupier can do this by
1- inserting an express term in a contract modifying the common duty of care to that visitor.
2- the placement of clear notices/signs. Usually used in the case of non-contractual entrants
Can the use of warning signs exclude an occupiers Liability?
S2 (4) warning signs won’t absolve occupiers Liability unless it was enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe
Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd 1957
Sigh placed at short cut used stating that estate used at their own risk when crossing rail track. The claimant had seen notice but did not read it.
Not liable as occupier had taken reasonable steps to being conditions to plaintiffs attention.
Roles v Nathan 1963
No duty to warn adults of obvious dangers-especially when they are skilled to understand the dangers present.
What was Tomlinson v Congleton BC 2003 about?
Dived into lake causing serious injuries. There were no hidden dangers to the lake as it was not permitted to swim. Tomlinson’s injuries were not a result of the state of the premises so there was no Liability.
What did Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services ltd 2001 confirm?
That the common duty of care under the OLA 1957 did not apply to activities carried out on premises with consent of the occupier but to the state of the premises
Confirmed in Tomlinson
