Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Question 1

The same rules regarding the definition of premises and occupier apply as they do in OLA 1957

Answer 1

The 1984 Act concentrates on different groups of potential claimants and a different approach is taken as to whether a duty of care is owed

Question 2

A duty of care is owed…to persons other than visitors if…

Answer 2

Defendant is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists

Defendant knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger, or may come into that vicinity

The risk is one against which the Defendant can reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection (s1(3) OLA 1984)

Question 3

the occupier needs to consider the following, when assessing whether a duty of care should arise.

Answer 3

How recently the danger has appeared
Whether the premises are closed to an area where children normally play and whether something could have been done to remove the damages

Question 4

Revill v Newbury (1996)

Answer 4

Defendant was guarding his garden shed and fired his gun through a hole in the door, wounding the person who was ‘other than a visitor’ a burglar and therefore a trespasser.

COA held that the Defendant was liable under OLA 1984 on the basis he had reasonable grounds to believe that the other person was in the vicinity of danger. The victim was not prevented recovering merely because he was involved in criminal activity (ex turpi causa) his damages were reduced by two-thirds for his contributory negligence.

Question 5

S1(3) OLA 1984 covers death and bodily injury only s1(8) OLA 1984

There is no compensation for…

Answer 5

Damage to property

Question 6

The standard of care set is objective, that is…

So that the court will need to consider matters such as…

Answer 6

The age of the claimant
The nature and character of entry
Utility of Defendant’s conduct
Precautions necessary to guard against the risk

Question 7

Defences, warnings and exclusion of liability

Answer 7

Warnings - a warning that is sufficient to discourage the Claimant from taking the risk will suffice, which is contrary to the requirement set in OLA 1957.

Therefore a sign marked WARNING! Will be sufficient, but the age of the entrant is important.

Exclusion - Consider Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) whereby the law lords showed disquiet to the so-called ‘compensation culture’

In Tomlinson there was no duty to guard against an obvious risk, well known to the Claimant, who is an adult.

Defence - volenti non fit injuria.