Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort Law - Paper 2 > Occupiers' Liability > Flashcards

Occupiers' Liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Which case defines the term occupier?

A

WHEAT V LACON & CO

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

What is an occupier according to WHEAT V LACON & CO?

A

An occupier is someone who has some degree of control over premises at the time the incident occurred

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

What section of which act defines premises?

A

s.1(3)(a) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957

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

Under s.1(3)(a) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 what are premises?

A

Premises cover land and permanent buildings, but also covers fixed and moveable structures, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

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

What Act covers lawful visitors?

A

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957

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

What section establishes a duty of care to lawful visitors?

A

s.2(1) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957

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

What does s.2(1) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 state?

A

An occupier owes a lawful visitor the common duty of care

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

What are examples of lawful visitors?

A

Invitees, licensees, contractual permission and statutory rights of entry

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

Who are invitees?

A

Persons who have been invited to enter the premises and therefore have express permission to be there

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

Who are licensees?

A

persons who the occupier has not requested to enter the premises, but who have implied permission to be there

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

Who are contractual permission visitors?

A

Ticketholders

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

Who have statutory rights of entry?

A

Search warrants

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

What does the case COLE V DAVID-GILBERT say about the duty of care to lawful visitors?

A

The common duty of care in respect of a specific risk cannot last indefinitely where there could be other causes of danger

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

What section defines the breach of duty of care to lawful visitors?

A

s.2(2) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957

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

What does s.2(2) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 state?

A

An occupier will breach the common duty of care unless he takes such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes which she is invited to be there

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

What does the case LAVERTON V KIAPASHA say about the breach of duty of care to lawful visitors?

A

The occupier has a duty to keep the adult visitor reasonably safe, but he does not have to keep the premises completely safe

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

What must D’s breach of duty have caused?

A

Damage suffered by C

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

What is owed to child visitors?

A

The common duty of care

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

What does s.2(3)(a) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 say about child visitors?

A

The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. If not, D will be in breach of his duty of care

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

What happens to the duty of care if the child is accompanied by an adult on the premises?

A

If an adult accompanies a child, and the danger on the premises would be obvious to the adult, the occupier will not have breached the common duty of care

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

What does the case PHIPPS V ROCHESTER CORPORATION say about child visitors?

A

Where young children are unaccompanied and injured by the state of the premises, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the young child should be under the supervision of a parent

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

What does the case GLASGOW CORPORATION V TAYLOR say about child visitors?

A

The occupier should guard against any kind of allurement drawing the child on to the land and which places the child visitors at risk of harm

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

What does the case JOLLEY V LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON say about child visitors?

A

D’s breach of the common duty of care must have caused the damage suffered by the child visitor. The personal injury suffered or the damage to property must be reasonably foreseeable

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

What does an occupier owe a tradesperson on their premises?

A

The common duty of care

25
Q

When will the occupier breach the duty of care to a tradesperson?

A

Unless he takes such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the tradesperson will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited there to be

26
Q

What does s.2(3)(b) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 say about a tradesperson on premises?

A

An occupier may expect a tradesperson to appreciate and guard against special risks in relation to their trade

27
Q

What does the case SALMON V SEAFARERS RESTAURANT say about a tradesperson on the premises?

A

If the tradesperson is still injured despite taking normal safeguards, then the occupier may still be liable

28
Q

What does s.2(4)(b) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 set out?

A

When an occupier will not breach the common duty of care when a visitor is injured by an independent contractor’s negligent work

29
Q

What does the case HASELDINE V DAW & SON say about a visitor being injured by an independent contractor’s negligent work?

A

The common duty of care will not be breached if it was reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to the independent contractor. The more complicated and specialist the work, the more likely it will be for the occupier to have to employ a specialist

30
Q

What does the case WOODWARD V THE MAYOR OF HASTINGS say about a visitor being injured by an independent contractor’s negligent work?

A

The common duty of care will not have been breached if occupier took reasonable steps to check the work had been done properly

31
Q

What is the third instance when the occupier will not have breached the duty of care when a visitor is injured by an independent contractor’s negligent work?

A

When the occupier took reasonable steps to choose a competent contractor

32
Q

How can an occupier avoid liability?

A

Contributory negligence, consent, warnings and exclusion clauses

33
Q

What does s.2(5) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 say about consent?

A

The occupier has no liability to a visitor in respect of risks freely accepted by the visitor

34
Q

When may a warning act as a complete defence?

A

When the occupier knows about a particular danger on the premises, a warning about the danger to a visitor may act as a complete defence

35
Q

What does s.2(4) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 say about warnings?

A

A warning is ineffective unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises

36
Q

What does the case RAE V MARS say about warnings?

A

If the premises are very dangerous or unusual in structure, the occupier may be required to use barriers or give additional warnings to keep visitors reasonably safe

37
Q

What does s.2(1) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 say about exclusion clauses?

A

An occupier can restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor by agreement

38
Q

What does s.65 CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 say about exclusion clauses?

A

A trader cannot exclude or limit liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence

39
Q

How can exclusion clauses be expressed?

A

In a contract form or clear notice

40
Q

What does s.1 OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

There is a limited duty of care on occupiers in relation to persons who are non visitors

41
Q

What can the court award damages for under the 1984 Act?

A

Death or personal injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises

42
Q

What section defines when an occupier will owe a duty of care to a trespasser?

A

s.1(3) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984

43
Q

What does s.1(3)(a) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

The occupier will owe a duty of care to a trespasser if he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists

44
Q

What does s.1(3)(b) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

The occupier will owe a duty of care to a trespasser if he knows or has reasonable grounds to know the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger

45
Q

What does s.1(3)(c) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

The occupier will owe a duty of care to a trespasser if the risk of harm to a trespasser resulting from that danger is one which, in all the circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection

46
Q

What case corresponds with s.1(3)(a) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984?

A

RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK

47
Q

What does the case RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK state?

A

The occupier will not owe a duty of care to C if he was not aware of the danger or had no reason to believe that the danger existed

48
Q

What case corresponds with s.1(3)(b) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984?

A

HIGGS V FOSTER

49
Q

What does the case HIGGS V FOSTER state?

A

The occupier will not be liable if he had no knowledge, nor reasonable grounds to know, of the presence of a trespasser in the vicinity of the danger

50
Q

What case corresponds with s.1(3)(c) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984?

A

TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL

51
Q

What does the case TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BOROUGH COUNCIL state?

A

The personal characteristics of the occupier and the limits on his financial resources may be taken as relevant

52
Q

What does s.1(4) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

The occupier will breach his duty of care unless he takes such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not harmed by reason of the danger on the premises

53
Q

What does the case SIDDORN V PATEL state?

A

The death or personal injury must be caused by the state of the premises and not be due to a careless act of the trespasser

54
Q

How can an occupier avoid liability to a trespasser?

A

Contributory negligence, consent and warnings

55
Q

What section allows consent to be used as a defence to a trespasser?

A

s.1(6) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 allows the defence of consent provided the trespasser willingly accepts the risk of injury

56
Q

What section allows warnings to be used as a defence to a trespasser?

A

s.1(5) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984

57
Q

What does s.1(5) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984 state?

A

The occupier can avoid liability by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage a person from incurring the risk

58
Q

What must the warning include?

A

The specific danger

59
Q

What does the case RATCLIFF V MCCONNELL state?

A

There need be no warning of obvious danger

Tort Law - Paper 2 (16 decks)

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