occupiers liability cases Flashcards
Wheat V E. Lacon and Co
You can have more than one occupier.
Harris V Birkenhead Corporation
You can be the owner even if you haven’t taken possession yet.
Bailey V Armes
Sometimes there isn’t an occupier.
Laverton V Kiapasha
Occupiers only need to take reasonable care.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
1: Things cannot be kept in constantly pristine condition, only reasonably good condition and 2: Only real sources of danger need remediation.
Cole V Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion
Duty cannot last indefinitely.
Glasgow Corporations V Taylor
More care must be taken for a child, rising even higher the younger they are, and the occupier should guard against any kind of allurement.
Phipps V Rochester Corporation
Very young children should be supervised by their parent/ guardian.
Jolley V Sutton Council
The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, but not the way that it happens.
Roles V Nathan
Occupational hazards aren’t the occupiers fault.
Haseldine V Daw and Son Ltd
If the work is specialist, it is reasonable to give it to a specialist firm.
Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket Club
Occupier must take reasonable care to check that the person they’re hiring is competent.
Woodward V The Mayor of Hastings
Occupier must have taken reasonable steps to check that the work is done to an acceptable standard.
BRB V Herrington
Created a duty of ‘common humanity’- a limited duty where the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass.
Ratcliff V McConnell
The occupier is not liable if an adult trespasser injured by an obvious danger.
