Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Flashcards
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Common duty of care- section 2(2)
THE CALGARTH 1927
You don’t give permission to slide down the banisters just because you have given them permission to enter your house.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Children1 section 2(3)(a)
The alluring principle’ GLASGOW CORP V TAYLOR 1955
7 yr old boy ate some poisonous berries off a shrub in a park and died.
The shrub was not fenced off and no warnings signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held- the berries would have been alluring to children and therefore represent a concealed danger.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Children2 section 2(3)(a)
Children should ordinarily be supervised
PHIPPS V ROCHESTER CORP 1955
5 year old boy injured when he fell into a trench when out walking with his 7 yr old sister . They were not held liable as you would assume that prudent parents wouldn’t allow their children to go unaccompanied to paces where it is unsafe.
BOURNE LEISURE V MARSDEN 2009
Mother left child unattended in a park and he climbed over and fence and drowned. HELD impractical to fence off every hazard and dangers and drowning in a pool is obvious
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Warnings1 section 2(4)(a)
If the danger is known of -STAPLES V WEST DOREST DC 1995
C fell off harbour wall where it was covered in algae without any warning signs. Held- the dangers of slipping on wet algae on a sloping wall were obvious and known to the C. Therefore there was no duty to warn.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Warnings2 section 2(4)(a)
Unusual types of danger - RAE V MARS UK 1990
It was held that were danger is extreme or unusual, it’s not enough for there only to be a warning; a barrier or additional notice should be placed.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Injury caused by independent contractors2 section 2(4)(b)
BOTTOMLEY V TODMORDEN CRICKET CLUB (2003)
the D had allowed an independent contractor to set up a pyrotechnic display on their land without checking for public liability insurance, they were liable for the injuries suffered by the C.
HASELDINE V DAW 1941
C injured by a faulty lift which had been surveyed by a group of technicians a week before and was seen in perfect order. Occupiers not liable as the technical specialist nature meant that the quality of the survey was not something that the occupiers could be reasonably expected to verify.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Volenti section 2(5)
(if someone willingly placed themselves in a position where harm might occur or knowing that some harm might occur, they are not able to bring a claim against the other)
SIMMS V LEIGH RFC 1969
C injured by hitting a concrete wall surrounding a rugby field. D not liable as injury was foreseeable but so obvious that it was not necessary to guard against it.
Occupiers liability act 1957
Occupiers- section 2(1)
Definition of occupier- WHEAT V E.LACON LTD 1966
“Wherever a person has sufficient degree of control over premises the be ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person lawfully there, then he is an occupier”
