Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Question 1

British Rail Board v Herrington

Answer 1

• a six year old was badly burned when he trespassed onto an electrified railway line through fencing
• British rail was aware of gaps in fence and children playing in the area
• House of Lords established a duty of ‘common humanity’ which was limited duty owed when danger was known
• As a result the 1984 Act was passed by parliament

Question 2

Ratcliff V McConnell - adult trespassers

Answer 2

• 19 year old climbed the fence of his college swimming pool
• dived into the pool hitting his head on the bottom
• Court of Appeal decided the occupier was not required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury from obvious danger

Question 3

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Answer 3

• claimant was injured when he was trespassing on a slipway in a harbour
• dived into the sea and hitting a grid pile which was visible at low tide
• Court help that occupier didn’t owe a duty of care to claimant under act 1984
• as wouldn’t expect trespasser to jump into harbour

Question 4

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 4

• Council owed a lake with warning signs posted that prohibited swimming
• they knew it was generally ignored
• so council made it inaccessible to public but delayed it as lack of funds
• 18 year old went swimming and struck his head and suffered serious injuries
• His claim succeeded under the Court of Appeal as the severity of his injuries
• the act if closing the lake should have been completed with greater urgency

Question 5

Higgs v Foster

Answer 5

• Police officer investigating a crime entered the occupier’s premises to carry out surveillance
• He fell into uncovered inspection pit suffering severe injuries causing him to retire
• Police officer was judged as a trespasser as occupiers couldn’t of anticipated his presence on the premises so couldn’t make him aware
• so occupier wasn’t liable

Question 6

Rhind v Astbury Waterpark

Answer 6

• occupier did not know of submerged fibreglass container resting on the bottom of a lake on its premises
• claimant ignored notice saying private property
• strictly no swimming and jumped into the lake and was injured by objects in lake
• Section 1(3)(c) requires the occupier to owe a duty if the risk is expected to have protection
• as occupier didn’t know of danger no duty was owed

Question 7

Keown v Conventry Healthcare

Answer 7

• 11 year old boy climbed a fire escape on the exterior of a hospital to show off and he fell
• the Court of Appeal held that since the child appreciated the danger it was not the premises that was at fault
• so hospital wasn’t liable

Question 8

Westwood v Post office

Answer 8

• claimant was an employee of the post office and was injured when entered as a trespasser
• unlocked room which had a notice only authorised attendant permitted
• door should have been locked
• defendants not liable as notice was sufficient warning to an adult