occupiers liability Flashcards
what two acts look at occupiers liability
OLA 1957 and OLA 1984
what does the OLA 1957 look at
visitors
what does the OLA 1984 look at
trespassers
what does S1 (1) state
“… in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done by them.”
explain Martin v Middlesbrough
F: a schoolchild slipped in the playground and cut herself on a broken milk bottle.
H: the local council were held liable because it had not made adequate arrangements for disposal of the bottle.
under common law who is an occupier
the person who controls the premises they don’t have to be the physical occupier, nor the owner the critical issue is whether they exercise a sufficient degree of control or allow or prevent other people entering.
explain the case of wheat v E Lacon and co
F: D owned a public house rand by a manager and his wife, he lived in the first floor and were allowed to take in paying guests. a guest fell on the staircase and was killed
H: HL held both the manager and owners were occupiers (but on the facts neither were in breach of duty- bad lighting on the staircase was caused by a stranger removing the bulb)
what section are premises defined in and what is the definition
s1(3) OF THE 1957 ACT.
land, buildings and any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
what is said in s2 (1) OLA
an occupier of premises owes the ‘common duty of care’ to all his visitors
who are visitors under s2 (1) OLA
- invitees
- licenses
- contractual permission
- statutory rights of entry
who is an invitee
persons who have been invited to enter and who have express permission to be there
who is a licensees
persons who may have express or implied permission to be on the land for a particular period
who has contractual permission
a person who has bought an entry ticket for an event
who has statutory right of entry
meter readers/ police with a warrant
explain the case of Jolley v London borough of Sutton
F: two 14 year old boys found a rotten abandoned boat on land owned by the council and decided to do it up. the council had stuck a notice on the boat warning not to touch it and that if the owner didn’t claim the boat within 7 days it would be taken away. the council never took it away. the boys had been working on the boat for 6-7 weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him. the boys had jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood
H: the occupier is under a duty to protect a child from danger caused by meddling with such an object by taking reasonable steps in the circumstances including where appropriate, removing the object altogether so as to avoid the prospect of injury.
what is set out in s2(1) about the occupiers duty of care
“an occupier owes the same duty of car to all his visitors except insofar as he is free to do and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitors by agreement of otherwise”
the nature of the duty id set out in s2 (2) what does it say
“take such care as in all the circumstances…is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited…to be there…”
what case sets out the duty of care for ordinary negligence
cole v davis-gilbert
explain the case of laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
F: D’s owned a takeaway. C slipped on wet floor when it had been raining (but D’s had slip-resistant files and mopped regularly)
H: CA- D’s had taken reasonable care to ensure customers were safe. customers can take reasonable care for their own safety
explain the case of clare v perry
F: C and partner had visited D’s hotel. when leaving at night instead of using designated exit they decided to climb the wall. unknown to them there was a 6 foot drop on the other side. she fell and was injured. sued claiming the hotel should have fenced it off.
H: the risk of an accidental fall was different from someone deliberately climbing over the wall. court would take into account the behaviour reasonably expected of a visitor. C’s behaviour was unexpected and foolish.
what is stated in S2(3)(a) of the 1957 act
“an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. if the occupier allows a child to enter the premises then the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.”
explain the case of phipps v rochester corporation 1955
F: the claimant was a boy aged 5, who was picking blackberries with his seven year old sister. they crossed some open land where the defendants were building houses. the land was commonly used by local children as a play area, and although the defendants knew this, they made no attempt to keep the children out. in the centre of the land the defendants dug out a long deep trench and the claimant fell into this breaking his leg. an adult would have seen the danger immediately
H: it is assumed that no sensible parent would allow such young children to enter the area in question alone without at least checking the risk for themselves.
