Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 Flashcards
What damages can a claimant claim for under OLA 1984?
As trespasser, only physical injury (ss1(1)(a))
Property damage is not covered (s1(8))
Who is the occupier? (OLA 1984)
Same as OLA 1957 (s1(2)(a))
- occupier is who will be treated as an occupier in common law (s1(2)).
- an ‘occupier’ does not simply mean the person in physical occupation of the premises. It denotes a person who hasa sufficient degree of controlover the premises so as to justify the imposition of a duty upon them (Wheat v Lacon).
- they must some sufficient degree of control (Bailey v Armes)
- can have multiple occupiers (AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd)
- can be absent owners (Harris v Birkenhead Corporation)
What constitutes as premises? (OLA 1957)
- wide definition given in s1(2) as any fixed or moveable structure
What is the definition of a trespasser?
he who goes on to the land without invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known, is practically objected to.
(Robert Addie & Son (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck)
What is the 3 stage test to determine the duty of care owed in OLA 1984?
3 stage test to determine if a duty is owed (ss1(3)(a)-(c))
(1) aware of the danger
(2) They know the other is in the vicinity of the danger
(3) Reasonable to protect the trespasser against the risk
Explain the “aware of danger” condition.
The occupier must be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists
- s1(3)(a)
- Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd
Explain the “knowledge that the other is in the vicinity” condition.
- The occupier must know, or have reasonable grounds to believe, that someone is in the vicinity or may come into the vicinity of the danger.
- including at thetimeof the accident
(Swain)
Explain the “reasonable to protect trespasser against the risk” condition.
- The risk must reasonable for the occupier to protect the trespasser from.
- balancing the costs of requiring the occupier to make the premises safer against the foreseeability and seriousness of injury.
- Normally if the claimant freely chooses to engage in an activity that carries an inherent risk, no duty will be owed.
- Occupiers are not expected to protect trespassers from obvious risks or self-inflicted harm unless there was no genuine and informed choice by the claimant, for example, where the claimant was an employee or lacked capacity such as a child who was unable to appreciate the danger (Tomlinson v Congleton).
What is the general standard of care in OLA 1984?
- duty to take such care that is reasonable to see that the entrant will not suffer injury on the premises (s1(4)).
What is the test to see if the defendant has fallen below the standard of care? (OLA 1984)
- same as OLA 1957
The test is the same as used in a general negligence claim - likelihood & magnitude of harm etc
The courts will take into account the resources available to the specific occupier when considering what reasonable steps the occupier might reasonably be expected to take to ensure a visitor is reasonably safe (Laverton v Kiapasha).
What does OLA 1984 say about warning notices?
- the duty may be satisfied if the occupier takes all reasonable steps “to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk”. (s1(5))
- under the OLA 1984 the defendant just needs to take reasonable steps to bring the danger to the claimant’s attention
- Trespassers almost invariably have a choice as to whether they come onto premises. Therefore, a notice will satisfy the occupier’s duty if it sufficiently discourages the claimant from trespassing.
What happens to causation and remoteness under OLA 1984?
once loss has been suffered and the defendant has breached their duty to that claimant - there is an assumption that causation and remoteness have been satisfied.
What are the defences available in an OLA 1984 claim?
- Consent / volenti (s1(6))
2. Contributory negligence (Young v Kent County Council)
