Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort - Exam cards > Occupiers Liability > Flashcards

Occupiers Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Occupier owes common duty of care to all visitors to premises

A

S2(1) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Wheat v Lacon

A

Any person with a sufficient degree of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Collier v Anglian Waters

A

A premises can have multiple occupiers. Particularly relevant as can be joint occupier with independent contractors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Ferguson v Walsh

A

Cna be a visitor to one occupier and trespasser to another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Moloney v lambeth

A

Landlord liable for communal areas, e.g. stairs in flats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Harris v Birkenhead

A

Landlord still liable even if have not exercised control over property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

AMF International v Magnet Bowlers

A

Occupier and independent contractor can jointly occupy the premises. This means they can be jointly liable for damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are premises?

A

S1(3)(a) OLA 1957 - any fixed or moveable structure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Wheeler v Copas

A

Ladder was premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

A party can be a visitor in 4 ways;

A

Express permission
Implied permission
Lawful authority
Contractual licensee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The Calgarath

A

Where someone is denied permission to enter certain areas they become trespassers in relation to these areas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Pearson v Coleman Bros

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Stoen v taff

A

Permission can be limited by time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Smith & Jones

A

Entered with purpose of theft, so whilst normally a visitor was trespasser due to purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Lowery v Walker

A

IMplied permission created by frequent use, and not excluded, therefore entered land as visitor despite being private land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Lawful authority - Statute reference

A

S2(6)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Contractual authority

A

S5(1) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the standard of care?

A

S2(2) - All reasoanble care to make sure the visitor is reasonably safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Laverton v Kiapasha

A

D took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury, therefore was not liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What section states chidlren will have an enhanced standard of care?

A

S2(3)(a) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Glasgow v Taylor

A

Doctrine of allurement - When the land has on it something which is attractive to children a higher standard of care will be imposed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Phipps v Rochester Corp

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Perry v Butlins

A

Occupier knew children would be unaccompanied on the premises so standard of care due was high

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the statutory reference for a lower standard of care for experts?

A

S2(3)(b) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Roles v Nathan

A
  • Lower standard of care due to professional chimney sweeps

- Occupier gave them warning of risk so not liable

26
Q

What is the reference that states the occupier may be laible for hiring of independet contractors?

A

S2(4)(b);

  • Reasonable to appoint a contractor
  • Contractor was suitable
  • Supervised so work was done properly
27
Q

Haseldine v Daw

A

Not laible for technical work which could not have reasonably been supervised

28
Q

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

A

Work not supervised and reasonable that it should have been

29
Q

Salmon v Seafarer

A

Occupier liable for IC injury if it is created by negligence

30
Q

Gwilliam v West Hearts

A

Occupier liable for damage if contractor does not have insurance

31
Q

S2(4)(a) - Warning notices

A

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

32
Q

Roles v Nathan

A

Warning notice met duty of care

33
Q

Staples v West Dorset

A

Do not have to warn of obvious dangers

34
Q

White v Blackmore

A
  • 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
35
Q

Simms v Leigh

A

Rugby player consented to the risk, and the risk was not abnormal

36
Q

Contributory negligence possible under OLA 1957

A

S2(3) OLA 1957

37
Q

VOlenti is possible under OLA 1957

A

S2(1) and S2(5) OLA 1957

38
Q

What section allows exclusion clauses?

A

S2(1) OLA 1957 however only as far a S3 allows

39
Q

UCTA 1977 in relation to exclusion clauses

A

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

40
Q

BRB v Herrington

A

Cannot exclude for common humanity

41
Q

Damages under OLA 1957;

A
  • Property damage

- PI

42
Q

Damages under OLA 1984 - S1(9)

A
  • PI

- Mental damage

43
Q

Under OLA 1984 who is a duty of care owed to?

A

Non-visitors

44
Q

Robert Addie v Dumbreck

A

Trespasser if;

  • Without permission
  • Presence is unknown
  • Presence objected to
45
Q

When is a duty of care owed S1(3)(a-c) 1984

A

D - Aware of danger
P - Proximity of potential trepasser
P - Reasonable for occupier to protect trespasser

46
Q

What is standard of duty of care?

A

S1(4) to take reasoanble care to protect agaisnt injury

47
Q

Tomlinson v Congleton

A

Took reasoanble care in preventing injury through sign prohibiting swimming. Did not have to prevent diving as danger was obvious

48
Q

How does a warning affect a duty of care?

A

May mean duty is satisfied depending on nature of sign - S1(5)

49
Q

Ratcliffe v McConnell

A

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

50
Q

Titchner v BRB

A

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)

51
Q

Defences availabel under OLA 1984

A
  • VOlenti
  • Contrib neg
  • Exclusion clauses
52
Q

Exclusion clauses under OLA 1984

A

Silent as to exemption clauses, though cannot exclude for common humanity - BRB v Herington

53
Q

Revill v Newberry

A

Contrib neg more likely under 1984 act as already negliegnet to a degree by engagning in illegal activity

54
Q

Swain v Puri

A

Not laible for harm to trespassing chidlren as no knowledge of previous trespasser and fence erected to prevetn trespass

55
Q

Scott v ABP

A

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

56
Q

Ashdown v Samuel Williams

A

An occupier can exclude liability through a clear and unequivocal notice excluding liability.

57
Q

Haley v LEB

A

Sign not sufficient to keep a blind man reasonably safe, so breach of duty. Individual disabilities are a factor.

58
Q

Structure of occupiers question

A

I Passionately Detest Other People’s Violent Dogs. Some Bitches Carry Rabid Dog Rabies

59
Q

Edwards v Railway Executive

A

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

60
Q

Young v Kent CC

A

Kids on roof was a known trespass so occupier liable

61
Q

Cooke v Midland

A

Implied permission not sufficiently revoked by putting up a warning sign in relation to kids

Tort - Exam cards (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions