Occupiers Liability Flashcards
Occupier owes common duty of care to all visitors to premises
S2(1) OLA 1957
Wheat v Lacon
Any person with a sufficient degree of control
Collier v Anglian Waters
A premises can have multiple occupiers. Particularly relevant as can be joint occupier with independent contractors
Ferguson v Walsh
Cna be a visitor to one occupier and trespasser to another
Moloney v lambeth
Landlord liable for communal areas, e.g. stairs in flats
Harris v Birkenhead
Landlord still liable even if have not exercised control over property
AMF International v Magnet Bowlers
Occupier and independent contractor can jointly occupy the premises. This means they can be jointly liable for damages
What are premises?
S1(3)(a) OLA 1957 - any fixed or moveable structure
Wheeler v Copas
Ladder was premises
A party can be a visitor in 4 ways;
Express permission
Implied permission
Lawful authority
Contractual licensee
The Calgarath
Where someone is denied permission to enter certain areas they become trespassers in relation to these areas
Pearson v Coleman Bros
- Child was licensee for premises as no notice denying entry
- May have express permission to enter land, then implied permission extends to other areas unless revoked
Stoen v taff
Permission can be limited by time
R v Smith & Jones
Entered with purpose of theft, so whilst normally a visitor was trespasser due to purpose
Lowery v Walker
IMplied permission created by frequent use, and not excluded, therefore entered land as visitor despite being private land
Lawful authority - Statute reference
S2(6)
Contractual authority
S5(1) OLA 1957
What is the standard of care?
S2(2) - All reasoanble care to make sure the visitor is reasonably safe
Laverton v Kiapasha
D took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury, therefore was not liable
What section states chidlren will have an enhanced standard of care?
S2(3)(a) OLA 1957
Glasgow v Taylor
Doctrine of allurement - When the land has on it something which is attractive to children a higher standard of care will be imposed
Phipps v Rochester Corp
- If occupier is entitled to assumed that parents will be accompanying the chidlren then the standard owed is lower.
- If child is young then there is an expectation that they should have been accompanied. However if child older then there is an argument that they should have known better
Perry v Butlins
Occupier knew children would be unaccompanied on the premises so standard of care due was high
What is the statutory reference for a lower standard of care for experts?
S2(3)(b) OLA 1957
Roles v Nathan
- Lower standard of care due to professional chimney sweeps
- Occupier gave them warning of risk so not liable
What is the reference that states the occupier may be laible for hiring of independet contractors?
S2(4)(b);
- Reasonable to appoint a contractor
- Contractor was suitable
- Supervised so work was done properly
Haseldine v Daw
Not laible for technical work which could not have reasonably been supervised
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Work not supervised and reasonable that it should have been
Salmon v Seafarer
Occupier liable for IC injury if it is created by negligence
Gwilliam v West Hearts
Occupier liable for damage if contractor does not have insurance
S2(4)(a) - Warning notices
Means the duty of care may be met if the warning is sufficient to keep the party reasonably safe
Warning must be sufficiently specific, cant just say warning danger
Roles v Nathan
Warning notice met duty of care
Staples v West Dorset
Do not have to warn of obvious dangers
White v Blackmore
- Warning notice did not constitute knowledge and therefore consent to risk
- However is warning is specific and informs claimant of risk, then can be defence of volenti
Simms v Leigh
Rugby player consented to the risk, and the risk was not abnormal
Contributory negligence possible under OLA 1957
S2(3) OLA 1957
VOlenti is possible under OLA 1957
S2(1) and S2(5) OLA 1957
What section allows exclusion clauses?
S2(1) OLA 1957 however only as far a S3 allows
UCTA 1977 in relation to exclusion clauses
S3 - CAn only exclude as far as reasonable (s11)
S1(1)(c) - Cannot exclude negligence
S1(3) - only applies to business liability
S2(1) - Cannot exclude for death and PI
S2(2) can exclude liabiltiy for property damage as far as is reasoanble
BRB v Herrington
Cannot exclude for common humanity
Damages under OLA 1957;
- Property damage
- PI
Damages under OLA 1984 - S1(9)
- PI
- Mental damage
Under OLA 1984 who is a duty of care owed to?
Non-visitors
Robert Addie v Dumbreck
Trespasser if;
- Without permission
- Presence is unknown
- Presence objected to
When is a duty of care owed S1(3)(a-c) 1984
D - Aware of danger
P - Proximity of potential trepasser
P - Reasonable for occupier to protect trespasser
What is standard of duty of care?
S1(4) to take reasoanble care to protect agaisnt injury
Tomlinson v Congleton
Took reasoanble care in preventing injury through sign prohibiting swimming. Did not have to prevent diving as danger was obvious
How does a warning affect a duty of care?
May mean duty is satisfied depending on nature of sign - S1(5)
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Duty of care met in protecting agaisnt harm by putting up sign and erecting a fence
- lower duty of care due under the 1984 act
Titchner v BRB
Where defendant is fully aware of risk from warning sign and decides to proceed anyway a defence of volenti will apply. (case of 15 year old boy hit by train)
Defences availabel under OLA 1984
- VOlenti
- Contrib neg
- Exclusion clauses
Exclusion clauses under OLA 1984
Silent as to exemption clauses, though cannot exclude for common humanity - BRB v Herington
Revill v Newberry
Contrib neg more likely under 1984 act as already negliegnet to a degree by engagning in illegal activity
Swain v Puri
Not laible for harm to trespassing chidlren as no knowledge of previous trespasser and fence erected to prevetn trespass
Scott v ABP
2 separate incidents of children injured from train surfing. Not laible for first injury as no knowledge, but liabel for second as knew of risk
Ashdown v Samuel Williams
An occupier can exclude liability through a clear and unequivocal notice excluding liability.
Haley v LEB
Sign not sufficient to keep a blind man reasonably safe, so breach of duty. Individual disabilities are a factor.
Structure of occupiers question
I Passionately Detest Other People’s Violent Dogs. Some Bitches Carry Rabid Dog Rabies
Edwards v Railway Executive
If trespass is repeated this does not necessarily mean there is a licence. Depends on nature of trespass, steps taken to exclude, and reasonable expectation of licence
Young v Kent CC
Kids on roof was a known trespass so occupier liable
Cooke v Midland
Implied permission not sufficiently revoked by putting up a warning sign in relation to kids
