Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Question 1

The OLA 1957 relates to what kind of visitors?

Answer 1

Lawful visitors

Question 2

What section says that the occupier of a premises has a duty of care to see that lawful visitors are reasonably safe when using the premises?

Answer 2

s2(1)

Question 3

Who is an occupier?

Answer 3

A person who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises to allow or prevent people entering

Question 4

What case shows us that dual/multiple control will be accepted?

Answer 4

Wheat v Lacon

Question 5

Who is a visitor and what section of the act does this come from?

Answer 5

s1(2), someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier to enter the premises

Question 6

What is someone who is expressly invited known as?

Answer 6

Invitees

Question 7

What does it mean if someone is a licensee and what examples can be given for this?

Answer 7

People invited by implication of the premises, examples include customers using a shop or salesmen that need to use your path

Question 8

When are children considered a lawful visitor and why?

Answer 8

Children are lawful if the premises has an ‘allurement’ that a child would want to use since it is expected they won’t have the same capacity to think as an adult

Question 9

What is the definition of premises and where does this come from?

Answer 9

s1(3), Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

Question 10

What does s2(2) state that the duty of care that the occupier must take is?

Answer 10

The duty to take care as in all circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe when using the premises for the purpose for which they have been invited or permitted to be there

Question 11

What is the duty due to economic issues?

Answer 11

To keep the visitor safe, not necessarily maintain safe premises

Question 12

What does s2(3)(a) tell us?

Answer 12

An occupier must expect that a child will be less careful than an adult, therefore a higher standard of care is needed (Must protect a child of that same age)

Question 13

What does the case of Phipps v Rochester demonstrate?

Answer 13

A defendant can assume reasonable parents would not allow their child to be sent into a danger obvious to them

Question 14

What does s2(3)(b) tell us?

Answer 14

Occupier is not liable if a tradesman is injured because they did not guard against a risk usually associated with the job

Question 15

What case shows us an occupier is not liable for a person with special skills?

Answer 15

Roles v Nathan

Question 16

What does s2(4)(b) tell us?

Answer 16

Occupier is not liable if the work that injured the C was done by a contractor who the D took reasonable steps to hire and believed was competent

Question 17

What section do warnings come from and what is meant by this?

Answer 17

s2(4)(a), occupier can discharge the duty if they have an effective warning letting people know of the danger

Question 18

What is an exclusion clause?

Answer 18

An occupier can exclude liability by making a clause meaning people cannot claim against them for loss or damage

Question 19

What section and act prevents an occupier from excluding liability for death or personal injury?

Answer 19

s65 Consumer Rights Act 2015

Question 20

What is meant by Volenti non fit injuria, and what section of the act covers this?

Answer 20

s2(5), no liability where the claimant knows of the risk and willingly accepts that they may be injured

Question 21

Who would be protected under s2(6) of the act?

Answer 21

Persons entering the premises in exercise of a lawful duty, i.e. police officers, paramedics etc.