Occupiers Liability ACT 1957

Question 1

What is Occupiers Liability?

Answer 1

The liability of an occupier of premises D for C’s injury and/or damage to property.

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Question 2

What act is used to lawful visitors in respect of dangers caused by the state of premises?

Answer 2

OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957

Question 3

What is the act for occupiers in relation to non-visitor?

Answer 3

OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1984

Question 4

Who are Occupiers?

Answer 4

An occupier is someone who has some degree of control over premises at the time the incident occurred: WHEAT v LACON & CO ( husband died at pub because the handrail did not go all the way)
Court held that both landlords and manager of the pub were occupiers.

Question 5

What are Premises?

Answer 5

Under S.1 (3) (a) of the OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 premises cover land and permanent buildings BUT also covers fixed and movable structures including aircraft.

Question 6

Under S.2 (1) of the OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957, what does an occupier owes a lawful visitor?

Answer 6

Common duty of care

Question 7

What can the court award damages for?

Answer 7

Death
Personal Injury
Damage to property

Question 8

What can’t a visitor recover for?

Answer 8

Loss of property

Question 9

Who are lawful adult visitors?

Answer 9

Invitees
Licensees
Contractual permission
Statutory right of entry

Question 10

What is an invitees?

Answer 10

Persons who have been invited to enter the premises. For example a friend or tradespeople.

Question 11

What is an licensees?

Answer 11

Persons who the occupier has not requested to enter his premises, but who have express or implies permission to be there.
Example: customers.

Question 12

Case for licensees?

Answer 12

LOWERY v WALKER
( a public path across D’s field and D had taken no steps to prevent. There was a dangerous horse and C was injured)
Court held that D was liable as a license was implied through repeated trespass and D’s failure to prevent people coming onto the land.

Question 13

What does the 1957 ACT not extend protection to?

Answer 13

Trespassers- persons who has no permission or authority
Invitees who exceed their permission- enters an unauthorised area of the building
Someone who is on D’s Land involuntarily- because they’ve been chased
Persons on the land exercising a public or private right of way

Question 14

What also does the 1957 act cover?

Answer 14

acts or omissions directly associated occupation of the premises which latter causes harm e.g. personal injuries caused to V by a guest permitted into a nightclub by its manager. The occupier will be liable.

Question 15

What happened in COLE v DAVID-GILBERT?

Answer 15

The common of duty of care in respect of a specific risk cannot last indefinitely where there could be other causes of the danger.
Here, C was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole in a village green where a maypole had been erected in the past.
The court held that’s C’s injury took place nearly two years after the maypole had been in place, the occupiers common duty of care could not last that long.

Question 16

Which section is the breach of the common duty of care under OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957?

Answer 16

Under S.2 (2) of the OLA 1957

Question 17

What does S.2 (2) of the OLA 1957 say about breach duty of care?

Answer 17

An occupier will breach the common duty of care UNLESS he takes such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe.

Question 18

What happened in LAVERTON v KIAPASHA?

Answer 18

The occupier has a duty to keep the adult visitor reasonably safe, but does not have to keep the premises completely safe. In LAVERTON D owned a takeaway and it was rainy but it was too busy and C injured due to the slippery floor.
The court held that D was not liable because he took reasonable steps by using slip resistant tiles.

Question 19

What is the causation for adult visitors?

Answer 19

D’s breach of the common duty of care must have caused the damage suffered by C. In order to recover damages, C must show that she suffered injury or damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 20

What section is OCCUPIERS’ liability in respect of Child Visitors?

Answer 20

S.2 (3) (a) of OLA 1957

Question 21

What is the duty of care for child visitors?

Answer 21

The common duty of care is owed to child visitors.

Question 22

What is breached duty of care for child visitors?

Answer 22

Premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. If not, D will breach of his duty of care:

• What is not a danger to an adult might be to a child.
• If an adult accompanies a young child and the danger on the premises must be obvious to the adult, the occupier will not have breached his common duty of care.
• Where young children are unaccompanied and injured by the state of the premises, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the young child should be under supervision of a parent.
• The occupiers should guard against any kind of allurement drawing the child on to the land and which places a child visitor at a risk of harm.

Question 23

What is the case of the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the young child should be under the supervision of a parent?

Answer 23

PHIPPS v ROCHESTER
A five year old child was playing on grassland owned by the council. The grassland was part of a building sites and the child fell down the trench and broke his leg.
Court held that the council were not liable as an occupier is entitled to expect that prudent parents would not allow their young children to go to dangerous places.

Question 24

What is the case for allurements drawing the child onto the land?

Answer 24

GLASGOW COOPERATION v TAYLOR
A seven year old boy ate poisonous berries from a shrub in botanic gardens that were open to public and died. The father sued the council who owned the gardens.
Court held that D was liable. The berries would have been alluring to children and D was aware of the danger but failed to act to ensure the premises.

Question 25

What is causation for child visitors?

Answer 25

D’s breach of the common duty of care must have caused the damage suffered by the child visitor. The injure or damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
JOLLEY v LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON
Council failed to move an abandoned boat for two years. Two 14 year old boys jacked the boat up to repairs it and injuring them.
Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat.

Question 26

What section is the OLA 1957 for people carrying out trade?

Answer 26

S.2 (3) (b) of OLA 1957

Question 27

What is the duty of care and breach for people with trade?

Answer 27

Common duty or care and will breach it unless he takes such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the tradespeople will be reasonably safe.

Question 28

A defence for Occupiers with people carrying out trade?

Answer 28

An occupier may expect a tradesperson to appreciate and guard against special risks in relation to trade.
ROLES v NATHAN

Question 29

What happened in ROLES v NATHAN?

Answer 29

Two chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney of a boiler.
The court held that the occupier were NOT liable as they have expected chimney sweeps to guard against a danger associated with their trade.

Question 30

What happens if the tradesperson is still injured despite the tradesperson taking normal safeguards?

Answer 30

The occupier may still be liable.

SALMON v SEAFARERS

Question 31

What happened in SALMON v SEAFARES?

Answer 31

D owned a fish and chip shop. One night he left the chip fryer on and caused a fire. C was a firearm who fell from a ladder due to an explosion whilst fighting the fire.
The court held that D was liable because C’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable ever of C exercised all the skill of his trade.

Question 32

What is an occupiers’ liability in respect of visitors injured by an independent contractors’s negligent work?

Answer 32

The 1957 Act allows an occupier to avoid liability for damage caused to a visitor by a danger on the premises arising out of the negligent work of an independent contractor hired by the occupier.

Question 33

Under which section of the OLA 1957 the occupier will not breach the common duty of care for independent contractor’s negligent work?

Answer 33

S.2 (4) (b)

Question 34

Under S.2 (4) (b) the occupier will not breach the common duty of care if:

Answer 34

1) reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to the independent contractor.
2) the occupier took reasonable steps to chose a competent contractor
3) the occupier took reasonable steps to check the work has been properly done.

Question 35

What happened in HASELDINE v DAW & SON?

Answer 35

C was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft in block of flats.
Court held that the occupier was not liable for the negligent repair and maintenance of the lift, as this work is highly specialist work and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialist engineering company.

Question 36

How could the occupier take reasonable steps to chose a competent contractor?

Answer 36

• Taking up references.
• Checking the contractor is registered with a trade association.
• Asking whether the contractor is properly insured.

The occupier might be liable if he does not check the contractors competence.

Question 37

What happened in WOODWARD v THE MAYOR OF HASTINGS?

Answer 37

A child was badly injured on school steps that were left icy after snow had been cleared off.

Court held that the occupier was liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly.