Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (AO1) plan Flashcards
What does the AO1 plan split into?
-Intro
-OLA
-Children
-Trades People
-Defences
What would you write for Intro?
-An occupier is a person or persons who have sufficient control over the premises.
-There can be more than one occupier - (Wheat v E.Lacon)
What would you write for OLA section?
-Premises= Premises are where a person has occupation or control of any fixed or moveable structure
-S1(3) OLA 1957 - Occupier owes a general duty to all lawful visitors
-S2(2) OLA 1957- Occupier must make sure the visitor is reasonably safe in the premises. Does not need to be completely safe - (Laverton)
-Not Liable for everyday trips and falls as stated in (Dean and Rochester Cathedral v Debell)
What would you write for Children section?
-The premises must be reasonably safe for children. S2(2) the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
-Some responsibility will be on adults (Phipps)
-Must guard against allurements (Glasgow v Taylor)
What would you write for trades people?
-The occupier will not be liable if the trades person fails to guard themselves against the risks which they should have known about or if they carry out negligent actions
-If there is an extreme danger, there needs to be more than a warning sign (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club)
What would you write for defences?
-Consent and Contributory negligence
-Warning signs - Can be a complete defence if sign was enough to keep visitor reasonably safe and visitor ignored. (Rae v Marrs UK Ltd) Extreme danger needs more than a warning sign
-Exclusion clauses - An occupier can restrict, modify or exclude their duty for any injury cased to a visitor by putting up a sign advising this
-Can claim for personal injury and property damage
What is the principle in Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)?
The court held that it is possible to have more than one occupier as it is not necessary for 1 person to control the entire premises they just need some control
What was the principle in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway (2002)?
The CofA decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure that their customers were safe, they didn’t have to make the shop completely safe or guarantee safety
What is the principle in Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)?
The council were not liable as the responsibility of the safety of the children rests with the parents as stated
What is the principle in Glasgow corporation v Taylor (1922)?
The council were liable as they were aware of the danger and the berries constituted as an allurement
What was the principle in Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)?
The club were liable as they failed to choose a safe and competent contractor
What is the principle in Rae v Marrs UK Ltd (1990)?
Where the danger is extreme or unusual it is not enough for there to be a warning sign
