Occupiers Liability Evaluation

Question 1

Main A03 points for OL?

Answer 1

• Positives + Negatives
• Comparing the 1957 and 1984 Acts
• The current approach of the courts
• Possible reforms

Question 2

What are the positives of occupiers liability?

Answer 2

• Acts are statutes - meaning they’re democratic (parliament are sovereign)
• Children are more protected as a lawful visitor + some responsibility on parents = logical. (Phipps v Rochester council)
• D’s defences

Question 3

What are the negatives of occupiers liability?

Answer 3

• The age of the acts + no modern reforms.
• Delay, cost etc.
• Visitor must be kept reasonably safe. Vague - objective vs subjective approach.
• What is an obvious danger?
• Should trespassers be protected. Courts limit this anyway.

Question 4

What are the main comparison points between the two acts?

Answer 4

• Difference in compensation/claims
• Objective vs Subjective approach
• Knowledge of danger (1984 claims D has to be aware of danger to be liable)
• Courts favour claims made under 1957 act - due to no trespassers

Question 5

Differences in terms victims claims?

Answer 5

The 1957 Act allows for claims of personal injury + damage to property whereas the 1984 Act allows claims for personal injury only.
-Justified in Tomlinson v Congleton

Question 6

What was found in Tomlinson v Congleton?

Answer 6

Lord Hoffman said it would be unreasonable to expect occupiers to have to go over the top and spend vast sums of money to ensure the safety of trespassers.

Question 7

Main points on the current approach of the courts?

Answer 7

• Message they’re trying to send.

- Publics opinion: Revill v Newbury case

Question 8

Courts current approach: message they’re trying to send?

Answer 8

Trying to send message that, despite publicly suggesting there is a compensation culture operating in the UK, visitors have to take personal responsibility for their safety and that sometimes pure accidents do happen. Shown in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway.

Question 9

Current approach: Publics opinion?

Answer 9

Public doesn’t support trespassers benefiting from their actions as seen in Revill v Newbury (82yr old injured Revill who burgled his allotment shed).

Question 10

What was the result of Revill v Newbury?

Answer 10

A media-led outcry when Revill was granted legal aid to claim for personal injuries (Revill at the time was in prison).

• Revill was awarded damges.
• Damages to be paid by Newbury were funded by public donations.

Question 11

Main possible reforms?

Answer 11

• Introduce no fault liability
• State-run compensation scheme
• Judges

Question 12

Describe no fault liability as a possible reform?

Answer 12

Introduce this so that the injured visitor, lawful or trespasser, should be able to claim compensation. If the burden of paying for this liability is placed on the occupier, then compulsory insurance for all would be required.
-Wouldn’t be popular and unlikely to be introduced.

Question 13

Describe state-run compensation as a possible reform?

Answer 13

Scheme paid by for by a levy/govt, possibly on all property insurance policies.

• Currently govt is following an approach of imposing a general tax on all insurance policies.
• E.g. Australia