Occupiers Liability Act 1957 / 1984 Flashcards
What is the key purpose of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?
This statute imposes liability for the occupier of a premises to make sure that his visitors are safe.
Premises as a concept - what can be defined as premises?
Premises can include buildings, such as house/offices/shops,
and vehicles such as a parked/permanently sited caravan (see Hartwell v Grayson Rollo 1947)
In which leading case were ‘Occupiers’ categorised?
Wheat v. E. Lacon and Co. (1966)
Lord Denning gave a wide category of what constituted ‘occupiers’ - what did this include?
Owners of buildings, managers such as pub landlords, managers of shops/supermarkets, tenants on leases (especially commercial leases)
Who can claim?
Generally a wide range of persons can make a claim under the Act, including customers in shops, persons entering under a calling such as chimney sweeps or fire fighters.
What provision is there for children in the Act?
The 1957 Act recognises that greater care is needed for children - s.2 (3).
Later affirmed by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton (2000).
List the three possible defences
Warning of the danger - see Roles v Nathan (1963)
Contributory negligence
Volenti (consent)
What is the key purpose of the later Occupiers Liability Act 1984?
The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 was a short act mainly concerning trespassers. Under the strict 19th century approach no duty of care was applicable to trespassers even if they were children.
Which landmark case informed the 1984 Act and introduced the central idea that trespassers are owed a “common duty of humanity”?
The 1984 Act took heed of the decision in British Rail Board v Herrington (1972) to apply liability for trespassers (in that case a small child electrocuted on a live rail). The central idea is that the trespasser is owed a “common duty of humanity”.
What about adult trespassers?
Adult trespassers, however, may not get the same level of protection as evident in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
