Occupiers liability Act 1984

Question 1

Under which section of the Occupiers’ liability act 1984 there is a limited duty of care?

Answer 1

Under S.1 of the OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1984

Question 2

What is the duty of care for non visitors?

Answer 2

There is a limited duty of care on occupiers in relation to persons who are non visitors. This includes trespassers, visitors who exceed their permission to be on the premises and visitors who have entered a prohibited area.

Question 3

Under which section of the OLA 1984 the occupier will only owe a duty of care to a trespasser?

Answer 3

S.1 (3)

Question 4

What are the three sections in which an occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser?

Answer 4

1) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to be believe that it exists
2) he knows or has reasonable grounds to know the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the dangers
3) the risk of harm to a trespasser resulting from that danger is one in which, in all circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection

Question 5

Which section is ‘he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists’?

Answer 5

S.1 (3) (a)

Question 6

What section is ‘he knows or has reasonable grounds to know the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of danger’?

Answer 6

S.1 (3) (b)

Question 7

Which section is ‘ the risk of harm to a trespasser resulting from that danger is one in which all the circumstances, he may be reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection’?

Answer 7

S.1 (3) (c)

Question 8

Will the occupier owe a duty of care if he is not aware of the danger?

Answer 8

No, in RHIND v ASTBURY WATER PARK the occupier did not know about a fibre glass container on the bed of the lake on its premises. The court held that no duty of care was owed due to S.1 (3) (a)

Question 9

Will the occupier be liable if he had no knowledge, nor reasonably ground to know of the presence of a trespasser in the vicinity of the danger?

Answer 9

No, in HIGGS v FOSTER a police officer investigating a crime entered the occupiers premises to carry out surveillance. He fell into a pit suffering severe injuries.
Court held that the police was a trespasser as he not have a statutory right to enter.

Question 10

Is the time of day and the time of year relevant in deciding whether the occupier owes a duty of care?

Answer 10

Yes, in DONOGUE v FOLKESTONE PROPERTIES C was injured when he was trespassing on a slipway in a harbour and dived into the sea. The injury happened in the middle of winter at around midnight.
The court held that at the time C was injured, D did not know, nor had reasonable grounds to know that C would be swimming from the slipway. S.1 (3) (b) was not satisfied.

Question 11

Under which section is breach of duty of care for non visitors?

Answer 11

S.1 (4) of the OLA 1984

Question 12

What is breach for trespassers?

Answer 12

Under S.1 (4) the occupier will only breach his duty of care unless he takes reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not harmed.
Relevant circumstances include the age and capabilities of the trespasser so that greater protection needs to be shown to a child rather than to an adult trespasser.

Question 13

Under which section is causation for non visitors?

Answer 13

S.1 (4) of the OLA 1984

Question 14

What is causation for non visitors?

Answer 14

D’s breach of his duty of care must have caused the death or injury suffered by the trespasser. The death or injury must be reasonably foreseeable.

Question 15

Which case is used to prove causation?

Answer 15

SIDDORN v PATEL

Question 16

What happened in SIDDORN v PATEL?

Answer 16

C was dancing on a roof and stepped on a skylight. She fell through and was badly injured. The high court held that D was not liable as he premises themselves did not give rise to any proper danger.