Occupiers Liability Cases Flashcards
Harris v Birkenhead
C was 4 years old went into an abandoned house and fell through a window. The house had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council. The house had been owned by a a private landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation but did not want it and found her own place.
The council was held liable.
Wheat v lacon
Cs family were on holiday in a public house when husband fell down stairs and hit his head and died. Stairs were steep and narrow with no bulb in the light and a only a short handrail. Cs actions failed
The calgarth
Permission to use a staircase is not permission to slide down the Banister.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
D owned Brereton Heath County Park. Created a lake in the middle where swimming was not permitted and had a sign saying “danger water. No swimming.” but many people still did. They also had ranger to stop people swimming but many people were rude to them and ignored them. C was injured after diving into the shallow water and broke his neck. Court of Appeal stated he was a trespassers dispute the inadequate signs and constant trespassing. The signs acted as an allurement to macho young men.
Searson v brioland ltd
It would be for a judge to determine whether the occupiers duty, to ensure that a visitor was reasonably safe for the purpose for which she was present had been satisfied. In the instant case the judge had been entitled to find that a raised sill in a doorway, over which can had tripped and suffered injury, had rendered the premised other than reasonably safe.
Maguire v Lancashire county council
C had tripped on a pathway maintained by the defendants local authority.
Picoolo v larkstock
C had slipped on a petal outside a flower shop owned by D. The accident had been caused by their negligence as they had permitted the area of pavement by the flower shop to have one or more flower petals on it.
Glasgow corporate v taylor
D owned the botanic gardens of Glasgow. A boy of 7 was in the park and ate some berries from one of the shrubbery. They turned out to be poisonous and be died. The shrubbery were not fenced off and there were no warning signs. The defendant’s were liable.
Jolley v Sutton
2 14year old boys found an abandoned boat which they decided to do up. The council had meant to take the boat away several weeks ago due to it being dangerous and rotting and the owner not claiming the boat. One of getting boys had jacked the boat up and we working underneath then the jack went through the rotting wood and suffered spinal injuries resulting in paraplegic.
After 2 appeals the house of Lords allowed the claimants appeal.
Phipps v Rochester corporate
A 5 year old boy and his 7 year old sister walked across some open ground unaccompanied. By an adult,when he fell into a trench and was injured. The corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not allow this children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe.
Simkiss v rhondda borough council
And father left 2 young children at the base of a bank of earth. The children climbed, fell down and were injured. The council were not held responsible. As they should have been accompanied.
Bourne leisure v marsden
And mother left her child alone on a park bench while talking to someone. The child climbed the fence and drowned in a pond. It was not seen to be the councils fault for not fencing the pond off as you could not fence off every anger. It was stressed it was also not the parents fault.
Roles v Nathan
2 brothers were employed as chimney sweeps to clear some flues. The flues had became dangerous due to carbon monoxide emissions, the brothers knew this. At one point the building was evacuated due to the high levels but the boys ignored this, when the order was deleted they again ignored it and became abusive and forcibly removed. And told to come back the next day when the fires were not lit, they ignored this and were found dead the next day. The defendant’s were not guilty.
Staples v west Dorset
C hurt his hip when slipped off a harbour wall. He argued that no warning signs had been present. But courts stated that they were not necessary as it was an obvious risk.
Haseltine v daw
C was injured by a faulty lift which had been tested the week before. Sued the occupiers. Courts said due to the technical nature of a lift the occupiers could no reasonably be expected to verify it. Therefore not liable.
