Occupiers Liability ACT 1957 Flashcards
What is Occupiers Liability?
The liability of an occupier of premises D for C’s injury and/or damage to property.
RYLANDS v FLETCHER
What act is used to lawful visitors in respect of dangers caused by the state of premises?
OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957
What is the act for occupiers in relation to non-visitor?
OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1984
Who are Occupiers?
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.
What are Premises?
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.
Under S.2 (1) of the OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957, what does an occupier owes a lawful visitor?
Common duty of care
What can the court award damages for?
Death
Personal Injury
Damage to property
What can’t a visitor recover for?
Loss of property
Who are lawful adult visitors?
Invitees
Licensees
Contractual permission
Statutory right of entry
What is an invitees?
Persons who have been invited to enter the premises. For example a friend or tradespeople.
What is an licensees?
Persons who the occupier has not requested to enter his premises, but who have express or implies permission to be there.
Example: customers.
Case for licensees?
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.
What does the 1957 ACT not extend protection to?
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
What also does the 1957 act cover?
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.
What happened in COLE v DAVID-GILBERT?
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.
Which section is the breach of the common duty of care under OCCUPIERS’ ACT 1957?
Under S.2 (2) of the OLA 1957
What does S.2 (2) of the OLA 1957 say about breach duty of care?
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.
What happened in LAVERTON v KIAPASHA?
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.
What is the causation for adult visitors?
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.
What section is OCCUPIERS’ liability in respect of Child Visitors?
S.2 (3) (a) of OLA 1957
What is the duty of care for child visitors?
The common duty of care is owed to child visitors.
What is breached duty of care for child visitors?
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.
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?
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.
What is the case for allurements drawing the child onto the land?
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.
