Occupiers liability act 57/84

Question 1

How is an occupier defined

Answer 1

can be more than one person- wheat v e lacon and co ltd 1966

if someone is n control of the premises then they are effectively the occupier- Harris v birkenhead corp 1976

Question 2

what happens if no one is control of the premises

Answer 2

then no claim - Bailey v Armes 1999

Question 3

define premises

Answer 3

s 1 (3) (a) of OLA 1957 states that a premises is any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft, such as a ship, a lift and a ladder.

Question 4

what are the three types of lawful visitors (1957)

Answer 4

s 2(1) says that children, adults and trade & calling are lawful adult visitors.

Question 5

what four types of lawful adult visitors are there

Answer 5

invitees- express permission to be there
licensees- may have express permission to be there for a certain period of time
contractual permission- ie an entry ticket
statutory right of entry-meter readers, police constables with a warrant for example

Question 6

what doc is an adult visitor owed

Answer 6

the common one as set out in s 2(2)- take steps in which the visitor will be reasonably safe (Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway supreme 2002)

Question 7

does slipping tripping and falling on a premises count as a claim, and when does a reasonably foreseeable risk occur

Answer 7

1. ) no they are everyday occurrences (dean and chapter of Rochester cathedral v debell 2016)
2. ) where theres a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as obliging the occupier to take remedial action (same case)

Question 8

what does s 2(3) say about an occupiers liability to children

Answer 8

occupier should be prepared for children to be less careful and therefore the premises should be reasonably safe for a child of that age

Question 9

what rules are there regarding OL to children:

Answer 9

should guard against allurement (Glasgow corp v Taylor 1922)
(with very young kids, courts are often reluctant to find occupiers guilty as where were the parents?- Phipps v Rochester corp 1955)
if an allurement exists but if the damage or injury isn’t foreseeable then theres no liability- jolley (2000)
therefore STD OF CARE IS HIGHER

Question 10

what does s 2(3)(b) say about a tradesman and DOC

Answer 10

that they will ‘appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leave him free to do so’

Question 11

what is the rule in regards to trade and calling in OLA 1957

Answer 11

That an occupier won’t be liable if the tradesperson failed to guard against a risk which they should know/be expected to know about- Roles v Nathan 1963

Question 12

what 2 types of remedies can be claimed for OLA 57

Answer 12

Personal injury and property damage

Question 13

what happened in 1966 in regards to trespassers

Answer 13

HoL used the PS to change the law with trespassers and introduce a duty of common humanity when the occupier knows about the danger and likelihood of trespassing (Herrington v BRB 1972)

Question 14

what does s1(1) (a) of the 1984 act say

Answer 14

duty applies for injury on the premises due to the state of the premises and things done or omitted onto them

Question 15

when will an occupier owe a duty under the 1984 act

Answer 15

under s 1(3), if the occupier is aware of the danger/grounds to believe it exists
knows/believes that the other is in the vincity of the danger concerned or may come into it
and the risk is one where he may be expected to offer some protection

Question 16

what does s 1(4) of the OLA 1984 say about the duty owed

Answer 16

to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that he is not injured by reason of the danger

Question 17

what rules apply in regard to adult trespassers

Answer 17

won’t be liable if trespasser injured by obvious danger- ratcliff v McConnell 1999
time of day and year relevant in whether doc owed- Donoghue v Folkestone properties (2003)
an occupier doesn’t have to spend lots of money making an area safe - Tomlinson 2003
occupier won’t be liable if theres literally 0 reason to expect a trespasser- Higgs v foster 2004
won’t be liable if not aware of the danger/no reason to suspect a danger (Rhind 2004)

Question 18

what rules apply to child trespassers

Answer 18

same as adults (keown v coventry healthcare NHS trust 2006) (Baldaccino 2008)

Question 19

what remedies can be claimed under 1984

Answer 19

only personal injury