Occupiers Liability Flashcards
What are the three tests
1) Duty of care
2) Breach Of Duty
3) The breach caused the damage
Define occupier and the two tests with the cases also who is in control of the premises
The occupier is someone who controls the premises
The test for deciding this is found in case law and tells us
1) there can be more than one occupier (Wheat V E Lacon
2 you are the occupier if In control of the premises(Harris v Birkenhead)
Courts may rule that no one is in control of the premises and therefore there is no occupier and the claim fails (Bailey v Armes)
Define premises
“A person having occupation or control over a fixed or moveable structure including vessels, vehicle and aircraft”
Houses, offices,buildings and land are premises
Who are lawful visitors.? And what are the two types
If they have permission to be in the premises
This can be EXPRESSED or IMPLIED
What is expressed permission.?
A person had express permission if they have gained permission to be there (invited)
What is implied permission and examples
Police officers
Fire service
Sales people
Those who enter to communicate wit the occupier are forbidden
What are the limitations to enter
The occupier May place permission to enter
A person who is allowed to enter one party of the land/building will become a trespasser if they enter another
Explain public right of way
Those who exercise a lawful/public right of way are not covered by this act as they are classed as a visitor( Gautret v Egerton)
People using are not visitors lawful or u lawful as they are exercising public right of way
Explain Duty owed
An adult visitor is owed a common duty of care.
So the occupier does not have to make the visitor completely safe
Plus they only have to do what is reasonably safe
What was the outcome in Loverton v Kiapsha Takeway supreme.? (Duty owed)
Court of Appeal decided that defendant had taken reasonable care to ensure customer safety- therefore not liable as they did not have to make the shop completely safe.
What was the outcome in Dean v Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
Court of Appeal decided that no occupier of premises could ensure that area around a building were maintained perfectly
What does the D need to protect visitors from
D needs to only protect visitors from foreseeable risk-the risk will be reasonably foreseeable anywhere there is a real source of danger which the reasonable man would see forced the occupier to take action
The duty owed does not cover liability for pore accidents
Plus a duty in respect of a specific risk cannot last indefinitely where there could be other causes of the danger ( Cole v Davis)
Explain and the duty owed
The occupier ( D owes children coming into the premises the common duty of care)
However there is also an additional specific duty owed to child visitor ‘ The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adult visitors and therefore the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
This is because whts may not pose a treat to an adult may be very dangerous to a. His
The occupier should guard against any kind of ‘allurement’ ‘attraction’ which places a child
However where very young children are injured the courts are reluctant to blame the occupier as the child should be supervised by a parent or adult during the visit- Phipps v Rochester corporation
Explain independent contractors and Wht are three requirements
If a visitor is injured by a workman’s negligent work the occupier may be have a defence and be able to pass the liability in to the workman
1) it must be reasonable for D to have given the work to the indecent contractor
2) the contractor hired must be competent to carry out the work
3) the occupier must check the work has been done properly
If all there are satisfied then the D has a defence
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984
Define trespasser
A visitor who had gone beyond their permission to be on the premises
In British Railway board v Herrington 1972 a Duty of care now owed to trespassers
