Occupiers' Liability AO3^

Question 1

Advantages

Answer 1

distinction between LV and T fits the public opinion
Premises is clearly def in 1975
ensures occ take care of their premises
kids expected to take less care and occ to offer more protection (Glasgow V Taylor)

Question 2

Disadvantages

Answer 2

occupier is not def in acts, but from case laws
1957- obj test (state of premises)
1984 - sub test (occ has to know of danger)
- 2 tests makes it confusing

Question 3

Legal Visitors Advantages

Answer 3

occ has to keep LV reasonably safe not complete - limit liability - resp on LV to be careful
workers expected to protect themselves against special risks (Roles V Nathan) - protects Occ as they can’t be expected to know them
The Calgarth - place resp on LV not to exceed permission
Occ can avoid liability if work is done by ind contractor
warning signs protect Occ as long as they are clear and sufficient

Question 4

Legal Visitor Disadvantages

Answer 4

reasonably safe is sub = inconsistent
kids supervised - unclear to when (Phipps V Rochester)
LV def is unclear as they need implied consent
The Calgarth - trival deviations dont change status
warning signs need to be sufficient but there is not def of Suff

Question 5

Trespasser Advantages

Answer 5

judges try limit liability with obvious dangers
Occ has to protect only from known dangers and if they have a reason to believe the T will be in vicinity - limit liability

Question 6

Trespasser Disadvantages

Answer 6

public opinion - T should not gain from wrongdoings (Revill V Newburry - they did)
kids are owed the same duty as adults = harsh