Occupiers Liability Act 1984 Flashcards
What is a trespasser under OLA 1984?
“A trespasser may be defined as a person who’s presence on land is unknown to the occupier or, if known is objected by the occupier”
How are trespassers case treated relating to kids?
British Railway v Herrington [1972]
- A 6 year old suffered severe tureens when he was trespassing on D’s land
- The child obtained access to an electrified railway line through a gap in D’s fence
- Which was used as a shortcut by members of the public
- D knew that in the past, children had been seen on the line, but they took no action
- Although a trespasser is owed low duty of care, the Lord Ships held that the occupier does owe a duty to act humanely
s.1(3)(a)
s.1(3)(b)
s.1(3)(c)
What does these sections say?
A duty is owed by the occupier when…
(1) The occupier knows the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exist
(2) The occupier knowns or has reasonable grounds to bereave that the non-visitor is in the vicinity or may come into the vicinity of the danger
(3) The risk is one against which an occupier may reasonably be executed to offer some protection
When s.1(3) are stated turn to s.1(4) - what does this section say?
Imposes a duty to take such care as is reasonable to all the circumstances of the case to see that the non-visitor does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned
What are the facts in Swain v Ram Puri [1996]?
- A 9 year old fell from D’s factory roof and he was injured
- C argued that D were in breach of their duty
- The court of Appeal disagreed and said that there was no new evidence of previous trespass and the factory fences were substantial
- The Court said under s.1(3)(a) having reasonable grounds to believe meant that D should have actual knowledge of the danger
What are the facts in Platt Liverpool [1997]?
- A group of boys entered derelict buying which collapsed - killed one boy and injured another
The building was opened by the council and had out metal sheets over the windows and doors and regularly checked that these were in place - The buying could only be entered by climbing over an 8 foot metal fence
The court of Appeal held that the council were not liable as they had done all that was reasonable in the circumstances to prevent injury
What are the facts in Ratcliffe [1999]?
- The College pool was closed for the winter and it was enclosed by a high wall and gates were closed
- There were warning signs placed
- The student climbed the gates and dove into the shallow end of the swimming pool in the college
- He hit his head at the bottom and he was injured
- The court held that the college was not in bread of its duty - the danger that someone might dive in was not obvious
- The case turned on the voluntary assumption of risk under s.1(6)
What are the facts in Tomlinson [2003]?
What did Lord Hoffman say?
- C went to the park, he ignored warning signs, he went into the lake
- He hit his head at the bottom when he dove into the lake
- The council were aware that the new swimming pool policy was flaunted
- And it knew of the danger to swimmers and disregard of the warnings
- It had planned to landscape and plant the breach areas as a deterrent BUT the work has not been done at the time of the accident
- Court of Appeal found the conic to be in breach under 1984 Act
HOWEVER… - HOL stated, an occupier of land owes no duty to C who suffered injury from an activity which cannot be attributed to the state of the premies under s.1(1)
Was Tomlinson a tresspasser or a visitor?
“Even in the case of a lawful visitor, where the risk was attributed to the state of the premises, the question of what amounted to reasonable care depends upon assessing
1. The likelihood of injury
2. Social value of the activity
3. The seriousness of injury
Lord Hoffman
“…extremely rare for an occupier of land to be under a duty to prevent people from risks…inherent in the activities they freely choose to undertake…if people want to climb mountains…or swim or dive in pounds or lakes, that is their affair”
What was the policy reasons on whether to make the council liable or not in Tomlinson case?
Lord Hobhouse and Lord Scotts quotations
- Soviet must work for the majority
Lord Hobhouse :”It is not, and should never be, the policy of the law tp require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled” - Protect the elderly and children
Lord Scott
“There is some risk of accidents arising out of the joie de vivire of the young but that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone”
Tomlinson’s injury could not be attributed to the state of the premises
Why was the case of Tomlinson important?
What did Lord Hoffman say at para 27.
It sparked the debate about the compensation culture. The courts did not want to create a compensation culture in the UK and the role of tort law was not to compensate each ad everyone who would want to be compensated for whatever injury they might have suffered.
Lord Hoffman at para 27 “Tomlinson was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without any pressure engaged in an activity which had inherent risk…”
What about cases regarding adult trespassers?
Higgs v WH Foster [2004]?
- Hicks was a police officer who went onto Foster’s land at night to take up a surveillance position, overlooking a neighbouring property
- He fell into an open inspection pit and injured his knee
- It was held that Higgs was a non-visitor
- But there was no reason to anticipate that someone might trespass near the pit at 2am
- Court said there was no allurement and it was not a natural route
What are the facts in Maloney [2005]?
- M took a shortcut to his flat on a council estate
- He slipped and fell from a slopping grass onto the concrete floor
- He suffered brain damage
- He was drunk at night when the accident occurred
- The court of Appeal state that M was a non-visitor
- Under the 1984 Act, it has not been shown that the Council knew or has reasonable grounds to believe that M might come into the vin city of the danger within the meaning of s.1(3)(b)
What are the facts in Young v Kent [2005] - Child trespassers
- Young aged 12 climbed onto the roof of a school buying
- using a duct pipe and fell through a skylight
- The skylight was brittle and a report indicated that there had been a problem with access to the roof
- It was held that the council was liable under the Act, the state of the premises was inherently dangerous to a child, there was a duty to protect the child
- The area was a known meeting place, the council would have known that someone would have climbed onto the roof
- There was a breach of duty but Young was 50% at fault
What are the facts in Buckett [2015]?
- Buckett aged 16 suffered personal injuries when he trespassed on School grounds
- He climbed onto the School roof and then jumped onto the skylight and fell through the glass
- it was held that the local authority dud not have a duty of care
Under the Act his injury was not due to the state of the premises and s.1(1)(a) - The skylight did not constitute a danger. The claim also failed under s.1(3)(a)
What was the quotation given in Westwood v Post Office [1973]?
“A notice on the door stating only authorised attendant is permitted to enter was enough, for the duty to be discharged for adult trespassers”
s.1(5) ; duty will be discharged when warning is given
