Occupiers liability (AO1) Flashcards
What does occupiers liability allow?
People who are injured on premises or within properties can claim damages from the occupier of these premises
What are the two statutes in occupiers liability?
-The Occupiers Liability Act 1957
-The Occupiers Liability Act 1984
What is the main difference between OLA 1957 and 1984?
In 1957 the care is owed to a lawful visitor, in 1984 the care is owed to a trespasser
Whilst there is no statutory definition as to who is a legal occupier, what is the definition developed by judges and common law?
The occupier is the person or persons who have sufficient control of the premises at the time that the damage was caused
Which case establishes that it can be possible for there to be more than one occupier of premises?
Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)
What is the principle in Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)?
The court held that it is possible to have more than one occupier as it is not necessary for 1 person to control the entire premises they just need some control
Which case establishes that there can be no occupier in some instances?
Bailey v Armes (1999)
What was the principle in Bailey v Armes (1999)?
Neither the flat owner nor the supermarket had sufficient control so they weren’t liable as the occupier
Where is the statutory definition or premises found?
Section 1(3)(a) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957
What is the statutory definition of premises under S1(3)(a) OLA 1957?
Premises are where a person has occupation or control of any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft
The courts expanded the definition of premises to include what four premises?
-A ship in a dry dock
-A vehicle
-A lift
-A ladder
What does S2(1) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 state?
An occupier will owe a general common duty to all lawful visitors
Under definition and duty, lawful visitors will be classed as…
-An invitee
-A licensee
-Anybody with a contractual or legal right to enter
What does S2(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 state?
Duty of care requires the occupier to take such care in all circumstances and see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purpose in which he is invited to be there
What does S2(2) of the OLA act mean?
That courts have imposed a duty of care on occupiers to keep visitors reasonably safe and not to necessarily maintain completely safe premises
What was the principle in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway (2002)?
The CofA decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure that their customers were safe, they didn’t have to make the shop completely safe or guarantee safety
When does duty of care arise in OLA 1957?
In respect of adult visitors, common DoC does not extend to prevent everyday slips and trips, the duty only arises when there is present a risk which creates a “real source of danger”.
What is the principle in Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)?
Occupiers will not be liable for every day trips or falls they will only be liable if a risk creates a “real source of danger”.
Under the 1957 act, what duty of care is owed to children specifically?
Occupiers owe a general duty to all lawful visitors but if the lawful visitor is a child then the occupier will owe a special duty.
What does Section2(3) of the OLA 1957 state about children?
The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and, as a result, the premises must be reasonable safe for a child of that age.
What does OLA 1957 state about allurements?
The occupier should be aware of and guard against the risk of allurements
What is an allurement?
Something that a child would be attracted to but they wouldn’t appreciate the risk like an adult
What is the principle in Glasgow corporation v Taylor (1922)?
The council were liable as they were aware of the danger and the berries constituted as an allurement
In which circumstances are the courts reluctant to find that the occupier is liable for the injury caused to the child visitor?
In situations where the child should be under the supervision of the parent
What is the principle in Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)?
The council were not liable as the responsibility of the safety of the children rests with the parents as stated
What is the principle in Bourne Leisure v Marsden (2009)?
The occupier was not at fault and were not liable as even though they failed to warn the parents of the danger, the danger was obvious
Who is an independent contractor?
Someone who enters the premises to carry out work on the behalf of the occupier
What does the OLA 1957 state about trades people/ independent contractors?
An occupier will owe a duty of care however, they will not be liable if the trade person or independent contractor fails to guard themselves against risks
What is the principle in Roles v Nathan (1963)?
The occupier was not liable, tradespeople must guard themselves against the risk of their trade especially ones which they have been warned about
What does Section 2(3)(b) state about trades persons, and what does it mean?
-An occupier may expect a trades person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risk ordinarily incident to it.
-This means that if a tradesperson is entering into property to complete a job, they’re expected to guard against risks
If a lawful visitor is harmed on the occupier’s premises as a result of the work of a tradesperson, under S2(4)(b) what must the occupier show? (To put blame on the tradesperson)
- It was reasonable to hire a contractor
- Reasonable precautions had been taken to ensure the contractor was competent
- Reasonable checks to inspect the work had been undertaken
If all three steps in S2(4)(b) of OLA 1957 are satisfied, what happens to the occupier?
The occupier has a defence and the C has to bring a normal negligence claim against the tradesperson
What was the principle in Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)?
The club were liable as they failed to choose a safe and competent contractor
What 4 defences can the occupier use so that the occupier is not liable for injuries caused to the lawful visitor?
-Contributory negligence
-Consent (Volenti)
-Warning notices
-Exclusion clauses
What does S2(4)(a) of the OLA act state about warning signs?
-A warning will not absolve liability unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe
-Visitor must be able to see the warning
-A warning sign by itself may not be sufficient if the danger is extreme or unusual
What is the principle in Rae v Marrs UK Ltd (1990)?
Where the danger is extreme or unusual it is not enough for there to be a warning sign
What is an exclusion clause defined under?
S2(1) of the OLA 1957, allows an occupier to restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise
What does the definition of exclusion clause mean?
That the occupier can limit or exclude their liability for any injury caused to the visitor by putting up a warning notice advising of this
What is the remedy in OLA 1957?
A claimant who had been a lawful visitor is entitled to claim damages from the courts for the personal injury or property damage they suffered
What are all the cases used in OLA 1957? (10)
(W,B,L,D,G,P,B,R,B,R)
-Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd
-Bailey v Armes
-Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway
-Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
-Glasgow corporation v Taylor
-Phipps v Rochester Corporation
-Bourne Leisure v Marsden
-Roles v Nathan
-Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
-Rae v Marrs UK Ltd
What are the two types of a trespasser?
-A person who has no permission or authority to be in the occupiers premises
-A visitor who has gone beyond their permission to be in/on the premises
What does Section 1(1) of the OLA 1984 state?
An occupier owes a duty of care to people other than lawful visitors
What does Section 1(3) of the OLA 1984 state?
That an occupier will only owe a duty of care to a trespasser if:
-He is aware of the danger
-Believes that the other is in the vicinity of the danger
-The risk is one against which he may be expected to offer the other some protection
What does Section 1(4) of the OLA 1984 state?
Occupier is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances
What have the courts stated about adult trespassers?
The occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured through an obvious danger
What is the principle in Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)?
The CofA decided that an occupier does nto have to warn adult trespassers about the risk of injury from obvious dangers
What is the principle in Donoghue v Folkstone Properties (2003)?
The occupier wasn’t liable as they wouldn’t expect that a trespasser would be present at that time of day all year
What did the courts decide regarding money in OLA 1984
The occupier doesn’t have to spend lots of money to make trespassers safe
What is the test established in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)?
HofL accepted the Councils appeal stating that:
1. In order to be liable under 1984 act, there had to be a danger due to the state of the premises
2. It was not a risk that the D had to guard against but one which the trespasser chose to run
3. The claimant is not expected to spend a lot of money to prevent injury
What is the principle in Rhind v Astbury Water Parks (2004)?
The occupier were not liable as they did not know about the danger so could not offer protection against it
What does the OLA 1984 state about child trespassers
The rules towards child trespassers apply exactly the same way as they do to adult trespassers. However, the courts when applying the law make allowances for child trespassers
What was the principle in Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)?
The hospital was liable and the judge stated that if the trespasser had been an adult then the hospital would not be liable
What are the defences that mean that the occupier is not liable for injuries caused to the trespasser?
-contributory negligence
-Consent (Volenti)
-Warning Notices
What is stated in Section 1(6) of the OLA 1984 about consent?
Adult trespassers will accept any risk they knew about when entering the land
What is the remedy for trespassers (OLA 1984)?
The claimant is entitled to claim damages for personal injury only
