Occupiers Liability evaluation 1957/84

Question 1

What are the strengths of occupiers liability?

Answer 1

-Both acts provide justice

Question 2

What are the 6 weaknesses of occupiers liability?

Answer 2

-Definitions
-Different tests under the Acts
-Limited protection to trespassers
-Trespassers are treated differently under the Acts
-Allurements
-Occupiers can evade liability easily

Question 3

Explain why both acts provide justice?

Answer 3

-Before the acts = common law duty
-There was lots of different duties and rules = confusing
-OLA 1957 AND 1984 simplified the law
-The law is fairly applied to every case in the same way as it’s consistent
-Common humanity, allows trespassers to claim
-However, doesn’t provide justice for occupiers when looking at trespassers

Question 4

Explain “definitions”

Answer 4

-The key terms used are not defined in statute
-Common law definitions
-Judge made laws
-Occupier isn’t defined in detail
-Wheat v E.Lacon - more than one occupier, which is fair and provides justice for claimants
-However, minimal definition could result in no occupier - unfair for the C they cant claim

Question 5

Explain different tests under the acts

Answer 5

-Different tests for lawful visitors and trespassers
-The law of OLA is not applied consistently
-Lawful visitors can claim for personal injury and property damage, trespassers can only claim for personal injury
-Shows public opinion that trespassers shouldn’t be able to claim
-1957 - Objective test - take steps to make visitors reasonably safe
-1984 - subjective - was the occupier aware of the danger - fair as the trespasser shouldn’t have been there in the first place

Question 6

Explain limited protection to trespassers

Answer 6

-1984 act it does create a duty to keep trespassers safe but this is limited when comparing to the 1957 act
-Can only claim for personal injury
-The occupier can evade liability - they don’t have to guard against obvious dangers
-They aren’t liable for certain days and times of the year
-This isn’t justice for trespassers as they have been injured but the occupier can easily evade liability

Question 7

Explain trespassers are treated differently under the acts…

Answer 7

1957- The act gives a higher level of protection to a child trespasser
-To make the rules fair there is no liability if parents should have been more responsible
-This balances the law
-1984- child trespassers created the same way as adults, this is unfair
-Warning signs are judged on a case by case basis - fair

Question 8

Explain allurements…

Answer 8

-Unfair to occupiers
-No real definition of what an allurement is
-Benefit to the C as it can cover lots of situations and offer protection
-How can an occupier protect against these if there is no real definition of what one is

Question 9

Explain “occupiers can evade liability easily”

Answer 9

-Warning or exclusion clauses allow the occupier to easily evade liability
-This is fair to the occupier and puts responsibility upon visitors or trespassers to take care whilst on premises
-Fair for child trespassers