occupiers liability act 1984

Question 1

s.1(1)(a)

Answer 1

says that claims can be brought by people ‘‘other than lawful visitors’’ for ‘‘injuries due to the state of the premises’’

Question 2

trespasser is someone…

Answer 2

> with no permission to be on the premises or
no permission to be on that part of the premises
no permission to be on the premises for that purpose

Question 3

Geary v Wetherspoon

Answer 3

woman slid down the stair banister and fell 4 metres, she had severe injuries. Whetherspoons not liable as the danger was very foreseeable

Question 4

s.1(3) duty owed by non visitors is not automatic

Answer 4

D of C only owed to a trespasser if;
1. occupier aware of the danger/ has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
2. knows or has reasonable grounds to know that trespassers are, or might come into the vicinity of danger
3. danger is the type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against

Question 5

1. Occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
   Rhind v Astbury

Answer 5

occupier didn’t know about glass at the bottom of a lake on his premises. C jumped in ignoring a notice stating ‘’ private property - strictly no swimming’’. C was injured by the glass. As the occupier didn’t know of the dangerous objects so no duty was owed

Question 6

2. Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to know that trespassers are, or might come into the vicinity of danger
   Higgs v Foster

Answer 6

a police officer investigating a crime entered the premises to carry out survellience. He fell into an uncovered pit suffering severe injuries, he had to retire. Although the occupiers knew the pit was a potential danger, they couldn’t have anticipated his presence on the premises or in the vicinity, so weren’t liable.

Question 7

3. the danger is the type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against
   Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 7

council owned a lake which had warning signs they knew were generally ignored to put in place plans to make the lake inaccessible but this was delayed due to lack of funds. 18yr old wet swimming, hit his head at the bottom and became paralysed. Due to seriousness of the risk of injury that people were frequently exposed to the risk + the fact the lake acted as an allurement means the lake should’ve been make inaccessible urgently.

Question 8

s.1(4)

Answer 8

duty is owed to ‘‘take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances’’ to prevent injury to non-visitors (not damage to property)

Question 9

s.1(5) warnings

Answer 9

can be a good defence as long as the warning is sufficient

Question 10

Westwood v Post office

Answer 10

C was an employee of the post office and was injured when he entered, as a trespasser, an unlocked room, which had notice ‘only the authorised attendants are permitted to enter’. The door should’ve been locked
Ds not liable as the notice was sufficient enough for an adult

Question 11

s.1(6)

Answer 11

volenti (consent)
full defence

Question 12

Donoghue v Folkstone

Answer 12

C was injured when he was trespassing on a slipway in a harbour and dived into the sea , hitting a grid pile used for mooring boats - would’ve been visible at low tide
held; occupier didn’t owe a D of C under 1984 act as they wouldn’t expect that trespasser to be present or jump into the harbour at time of day or year

Question 13

Addie v Dumbreck (past law)

Answer 13

no duty of care to child visitors
later H of L used the practice statement to overrule this precedent in the case of BRB v Herrington