occupiers liability act 1957 Flashcards
lawful visitors
occupier
as defined in Harris v Birkenhed as ‘anyone with a sufficient degree of control over a premises/part of’’
premises
s.1(3)(a) states that premises include ‘a fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’
may include a ladder - Wheeler v Copas
s.2(1)
the occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
lawful visitors include
invitees, licensees, people with a legal right to be there + children who were ‘‘allured’’ by something
s.2(2) automatic duty of care
the standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care to keep the visitor reasonably safe
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway
the court decided the occupier had taken reasonable care as they had fitted slip resistant tiles and mopped when it rained so they were not liable for Cs injuries
Dean + chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences. No occupier of premises like a cathedral could possibly ensure that roads and precincts were maintained to a pristine state
The risk is reasonably foreseeable only where there is a real source of danger that a reasonable person would recognise
s.2(3)(a) standard of care
the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and must make sure the premises are a reasonably safe for a child of that age
(higher standard of care for children)
Glasgow v Taylor
7yr old died from eating poisonous berries from a shrub in the park, the shrub not fenced off in anyway. council were liable as they were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children
Jolley v Sutton
children regularly played on an abandoned boat which the council failed to move for 2 yrs, clearly had potential danger.
2 boys aged 14 jacked the boat to repair it + the boat fell on one.
while the boat was an obvious allurement the actions of the boys and the specific injury was not foreseeable
exception developed in cases such as…
Phipps v Rochester
5yr old playing on open ground owned by the council with his 7yr old sister. He fell down a trench + was injured
court decided the council wasn’t liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents shouldn’t allow their young children to go to places which are potentially unsafe
s.2(3)(b) standard of care
the occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks
(lower standard of care for professionals)
Roles v Nathan
two chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes. The sweeps had been warned of the danger. The occupier wasn’t liable as they could’ve expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of that particular danger.
s.2(4)(a) warnings
the occupier will not be liable if they give a warning of the danger - must be enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe
Rae v Mars
the warning sign was in the dark and you could only see it after the danger so it wasn’t sufficient
s.2(4)(b) indépendant contractor
the occupier can avoid liability if the accident was due to the work of a independent contractor if:
1.reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
2.checked the competence of the contractor
3.checked the work of the contractor if possible
- It was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
Haseldine v Daw
repair or maintenance to a lift was highly specialist activity and it was given to a specialist firm so not liable when someone was killed due to the lift plunging to the bottom of the shaft
- the occupier checked the competence of the contractor
Bottomley v Todmorden
cricket club hired a team to carry out a firework display, the team then had an unpaid amateur carry out the display where he was burnt + broke his arm. Court decided cricket club was liable as it failed to choose competent contractors
- the occupier checked the work of the contractor- if it was possible
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
child was injured on school steps that left icy after snow had been cleared off them. Occupiers liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly + the danger should’ve been obvious to them
s.2(1) exclusion clauses
the occupier can ‘‘restrict, modify or exclude duty by agreement or otherwise’’
Unfair Contract Terms act 1977 states that liability for death/ personal injury cannot be excluded
s.2(5) defence of consent
volenti non fit injuria ‘‘to a willing person there is no injury’’ - full defence
the occupier can avoid liability if the C knowingly consented to the risk of harm
contributory negligence
if Cs claim succeeded their damages may still be reduced by the extent that the court thinks C shared in the blame for what happened - partial defence
