Occupiers Liability Evaluation Flashcards
Fair to occupier
POINT: Only liable for dangers they should reasonably be aware of; EXPLAIN: S2(2)- Only need to take reasonable care EVALUATION: Balanced + fair duty
Fair to occupier
POINT: O not liable for work of competent contractor; EXPLAIN: S2(4)(b)- if conditions met + reasonable steps took
Fair to occupier
POINT: Not liable if took reasonable care to prevent harm; EXPLAIN: S2(2)- Only required to take reasonable steps to make reasonably safe for C EVALUATION: Prevents enforcing an unreasonable standard of protection on O LINK: If reasonable care taken
Fair to occupier
POINT: Warnings can discharge liability when appropriate; EXPLAIN: S2(4)(a)- can avoid liability if adequate warning given EVALUATION: O can fulfil duty by informing visitors of dangers instead of removing every hazard LINK: Fair to O
Unfair to occupier
POINT: Can be liable if C disregards warnings; EXPLAIN: If C ignores warnings and is injured
Unfair to occupier
POINT: "Reasonable care" is subjective; EXPLAIN: Interpretation varies as it's subjective- leads to an inconsistent outcome EVALUATION: Harder for O to know what to expect- Can be found liable even if they genuinely believed they took reasonable care LINK: Makes law inconsistent and unfair to O
Unfair to occupier
POINT: O can be liable for the work of an independent contractor; EXPLAIN: O must verify that contractor is competent and qualified (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club) EVALUATION: Requires O to assess contractor's competence + risk management which is out of O's expertise LINK: Unfair to O
Unfair to occupier
POINT: Higher standards of care for children; EXPLAIN: S2(3)(a)- Anticipate children will be less cautious EVALUATION: Heavier burden
Fair to claimant
POINT: O must take reasonable care for lawful visitors; EXPLAIN: S2(2) - O must take such care that it is reasonably safe for v to use premises for the reason invited EVALUATION: Holds occupiers accountable- ensures safety standards are met LINK: Fair- O must take reasonable- ensures visitors safety
Fair to claimant
POINT: Additional protection for children; EXPLAIN: S2(3)(a)- Recognises vulnerability + allurements
Fair to claimant
POINT: O liable for injuries from hidden dangers; EXPLAIN: Must give sufficient warning- Staples v West Dorset EVALUATION: Protects claimants from hazards they aren't made aware of properly + forces O to warn sufficiently LINK: Ensures compensation if insufficient warning + ensures better safety standards
Fair to claimant
POINT: Trespassers offered limited protection; EXPLAIN: OLA 1984- Ensures O don't ignore known dangers that can harm C EVALUATION: Basic rights to C even if they're no longer a lawful visitor LINK: Fairer to C without imposing too much on O
Unfair to claimant
POINT: C may struggle to prove O's negligence; EXPLAIN: Burden of proof on C- must prove O failed to take reasonable steps EVALUATION: Can be hard without clear evidence- limit C's access to justice LINK: Leave C without compensation
Unfair to claimant
POINT: Limited claimant rights on OLA 1984; EXPLAIN: 1984 Act- lower duty owed to C even if O danger is foreseeable and O is aware of it EVALUATION: Unfair to C- suffer serious injury due to O's failure to address danger LINK: Leaves C without sufficient compensation
Unfair to claimant
POINT: Warnings can absolve O even if risk remains; EXPLAIN: S2(4)(a)- O can discharge duty through warnings without removing the risk EVALUATION: Unfair to C
Unfair to claimant
POINT: Contributory negligence can reduce compensation; EXPLAIN: Law Reform Act 1945- Damages can be reduced if C found to have contributed to injury EVALUATION: Reduces compensation even if O's negligence was the main cause LINK: C isn't fully compensated
Reforms
OLA 1957; WHAT: Codified duty of care EFFECTS: Made law more clear + reduced uncertainty
Reforms
Law Commission Report 1976; WHAT: Duty of "common humanity" to trespassers EFFECTS: Made law fairer
