Occupiers Liability (chapter 22)

Question 1

Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd (1996) - manager of pub

Answer 1

. Manager of pub was given right to rent out rooms in his private area
. Had no ownerships rights in the premises
. Paying guest fell on stairs and died
. Decoded that both manager and employers could be liable
. So there can be more than 1 occupier

Question 2

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976) - local council

Answer 2

. Local council served a compulsory purchase notice on a house but had not taken possession or made secure
. 4 year old boy injured in empty house
. Decked council were occupiers as there were effectively in control of premises

Question 3

Bailey v Armes (1999) - flat above supermarkets

Answer 3

. Defendant lived in flats above supermarket
. They let son play on roof but didnt allow him to take anyone else
. Boy took his friend and he was injured when he fell from roof
. Court of appeal decided neither supermarket nor defendant were liable as neither had sufficient control over roof

Question 4

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002) - takeaway shop

Answer 4

. Defendant had takeaway shop with fitted resistant floor tiles
. It was raining so it had been mopped, claimant went into crowded shop and slipped and broke her ankle
. Court of appeal decided shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe - premises was completely safe and they weren’t liable

Question 5

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)

Answer 5

. Claimant was injured when he tripped over concrete protruding about 2 inches
. Court of appeal decided:
- tripped, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences (occupier has to make premises reasonably safe for visitors not guarantee their safety
- visitor will be reasonably safe even if there’s minor defence which carry a foreseeable risk of causing accident or injury

Question 6

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) - poisonous berries

Answer 6

. 7 year old child died eating poisonous berries picked from shrub in public park
. Shrub wasn’t fenced off
. Council was liable as they were aware of danger and berried amounted to allurement to young children

Question 7

Jolley v London Borough of a Sutton (2000) - abandoned boat

Answer 7

. Council failed to move abandoned boat that had been on land 2 years ago
. Children regularly played on boat
. 2 14yr olds jacked boat up and fell causing serious injuries
. House of Lords decided council were liable as it was foreseeable that children would play
. Children often get in danger, which needs to be taken in account by occupiers when considering how to keep them safe

Question 8

Roles v Nathan (1963) - chimney sweeps

Answer 8

. Chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while clean in chimney
. Had been warned of danger
. Occupiers were not liable as they could expect potential danger and take necessary precautions

Question 9

Hazeldine v Daw & Son Ltd (1941) - negligent repair

Answer 9

. Claimant was injured when a lift plunged to bottom of shaft
. Occupier was not liable for negligent repair or maintenance of lift as this was specialist work and it was reasonable to give this work to a specialist firm

Question 10

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945) - icy steps

Answer 10

. Child was injured on school steps after they were left icy after snow had been cleared from them
. Occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure work has been properly done, and danger should’ve been obvious

Question 11

Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995( - harbour wall

Answer 11

. Claimant fractured his hip when he fell of harbour wall that wasn’t covered in algae
. He argued there wasn’t any warning signs of danger
. court ruled the dangers were obvious and known to claimant; so there was no duty to warn him

Question 12

Ratcliff v McConnell (1999) - college swimming pool

Answer 12

. 19yr old dived into college swimming pool at night, he hit his dead on bottom and was injured
. Court of appeal decided occupier wasn’t required to warn adult trespassers of risk of injury arising from obvious danger
. In this case, there was no hidden danger as it is well known that swimming pools very in depth
. Time of day and year is relevant

Question 13

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003) - slipway at harbour

Answer 13

. Claimant was injured when he tresspasser at harbour
. He dived into sea and hit his head on grid pile, suffering serious injuries
. Incident took place in middle of winter and midnight
. Held occupier did not owe claimant a duty of care under 1984 act as they could not expect a trespasser would be present

Question 14

Higgs v Foster (2004)

Answer 14

. Police officer investigated a crime entered occupiers premises in order for surveillance
. He fell into uncovered inspection pit, suffering such severe injuries that he had to retire from the force
. He was judged to be a trespasser
. Occupier wasn’t liable, they couldn’t have anticipated officer’s presence on premises, or vicinity of it

Question 15

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004) - fibreglass

Answer 15

. Claimant ignored notice stating ‘private property: strictly no swimming’
. When he jumped into lake he was injured by fibreglass containers at the bottom
. No obligation on occupier under s 1(3)(a) to check for hidden dangers
. In this case swimming is prohibited
. Differed from duty under 1957 act where occupier should ensure visitor will be reasonably safe

Question 16

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 16

. 11 year old boy fell from fire escape on exterior of hospital when he was showing off to his friends
. Court of appeal held as he appreciated danger, it was what the boy was doing on it
. Hospital was not liable as there was no danger due to the state of premises.

Question 17

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 17

. 11 year old boy fell from fire escape on exterior of hospital when he was showing off to his friends
. Court of appeal held as he appreciated danger, it was what the boy was doing on it
. Hospital was not liable as there was no danger due to the state of premises.