Occupiers Liability - Lawful Visitor Flashcards
Occupiers’ liability lawfully visitors- governed by
Occupiers’ liability act 1957
Occupier- the occupier is the person in control of the premises at the time the harm was suffered
(S1(2) Occupier Liability Act 1957)
Occupier- an occupier has sufficient degree of control over the premises
Wheat v Lacon
Occupier- there can be more than one occupier
Wheat v Lacon
Occupier- an occupier doesn’t have to have proprietary interest in the property
Harris v Birkenhead corporation
Occupier- sometimes premises will have no occupier
Bailey v Armes
Premises- a ‘fixed or moveable structure’ can be a premises
S1(3)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Premises- a ladder is a structure
Wheeler v Copas
Premises- a lift is a structure
Haseldine
Premises- a vehicles is a structure
Hartwell
Premises- a ship in a dry dock is a structure
Horton
Lawful visitor- ………….. identifies the following group of lawful visitors: invited people, licensees, entering under contractual agreement or entering under a legal right (police)
S1(2) OLA 1957
Lawful visitor- a trespasser can become a lawful visitor, if implied permission is granted for them to be on the land and the occupier is aware of the trespassing but chose to do nothing to prevent it
Lowery v Walker
Lawful visitor- if a visitor goes beyond the permission granted to them then they are a trespasser and therefore cannot claim under OLA 1957
The Calgrath
Duty of Care- to take reasonable care to keep the visitors reasonably safe
S2(2) OLA 1957
Duty of care- doesn’t have a duty of care to keep the visitors completely safe
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
Duty of care- a higher duty of care is required for a child, but the exact amount of care is dependant on the child’s age
S2(3)(a) OLA 1957
Duty of care- the D could be liable if a child is injured due to an allurement on the premises
Taylor
Duty of care- only be liable if there is a foreseeable risk of injury
Jolley v Sutton LBC
Duty of care- if a child is expected to be accompanied onto the occupiers premises by an adult, the D won’t be liable
Phipps
Duty of care- a skilled worker is expected to appreciate and guard against any special risks associated with the premises
S2(3)(b) OLA 1957
Duty of care- professionals should be aware of the risks associated with the danger and therefore take appropriate precautions
Roles v Nathan
Duty of care- D can be liable for the harm caused to a rescuer, if a rescuer acted accordingly in the situation and the need for rescue was caused by the Ds negligence
Ogwo v Taylor
Specific defences—Independent Contractor (IC), ………. governs this test
S2(4)(b) OLA 1957
(IC)- it was reasonable for the occupier to give the work to the independent contractor
Haseldine v Daw
(IC)- the D has to check the credentials of the IC and if not checked the D could be liable/accounatble.
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
(IC)- expected to take reasonable steps to check the worked completed by the independent contractor; if that be by checking it themselves or by getting a professional to check it.
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Specific defences— Warning Signs (WS), if a D provides warning signs that in all circumstances are enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, if they are effective signs.
S2(4)(a) OLA 1957
(WS)- if there is an obvious danger, the D has no duty to warn the visitor
Darby
Conclusion— Exclusion Clause; ……….. an occupier can restrict, modify or exclude their duty by agreement or otherwise such as a warning this can be oral or written.
S2(1) OLA 1957
Conclusion- view defences and remedies as well as past paragraphs found in books
^^^^^^^^^^
