occupiers liability act 1957

Question 1

occupier

Answer 1

as defined in Harris v Birkenhed as ‘anyone with a sufficient degree of control over a premises/part of’’

Question 2

premises

Answer 2

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

Question 3

s.2(1)

Answer 3

the occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors

Question 4

lawful visitors include

Answer 4

invitees, licensees, people with a legal right to be there + children who were ‘‘allured’’ by something

Question 5

s.2(2) automatic duty of care

Answer 5

the standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care to keep the visitor reasonably safe

Question 6

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Dean + chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Answer 7

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

Question 8

s.2(3)(a) standard of care

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

Glasgow v Taylor

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Jolley v Sutton

Answer 10

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

Question 11

exception developed in cases such as…
Phipps v Rochester

Answer 11

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

Question 12

s.2(3)(b) standard of care

Answer 12

the occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks
(lower standard of care for professionals)

Question 13

Roles v Nathan

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

s.2(4)(a) warnings

Answer 14

the occupier will not be liable if they give a warning of the danger - must be enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe

Question 15

Rae v Mars

Answer 15

the warning sign was in the dark and you could only see it after the danger so it wasn’t sufficient

Question 16

s.2(4)(b) indépendant contractor

Answer 16

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

Question 17

1. It was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
   Haseldine v Daw

Answer 17

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

Question 18

2. the occupier checked the competence of the contractor
   Bottomley v Todmorden

Answer 18

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

Question 19

3. the occupier checked the work of the contractor- if it was possible
   Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

Answer 19

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

Question 20

s.2(1) exclusion clauses

Answer 20

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

Question 21

s.2(5) defence of consent

Answer 21

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

Question 22

contributory negligence

Answer 22

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