occupiers liability- lawful visitors Flashcards
whats the act for OL lawful visitors
Occupies liability act 1957
what does this state
an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to lawful visitors
what are the 5 requirements
defendant is an occupier
happened on premises
claimant was a lawful visitor
a common duty of care is owed
there are exceptions
who are the potential defendants
occupiers or tenants
what 3 cases give definitions for what an occupier is
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd 1966
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation 1976
Bailey v Armes 1999
what requirement is these under
defendant is an occupier
whats the rule that comes from wheat
more than 1 person can be an occupier
whats the rule that comes from harris
don’t need to be physically occupying to be responsible- those who have control over property
whats the rule that comes from bailey
occupier can be no one
what section of the OLA gives a list of what can be included as a premises
s.1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 195
what does it say can be included
any fixed or moveable structure, including a vessel, vehicle or aircraft
what does this then also include
Houses, offices, building, scaffolding, land, ship in a dock, a lift in a building, a ladder
what case gave us the things from flashcard 12
(wheeler v copas 1981)
So for a scenario question on Occupier’s Liability, we first ask:
Is D an occupier-> did the incident happen on Ds ‘premises’-> is C a lawful visitor or trespasser
Then follow the different rules depending on whether Claimant was on the premises lawfully or not
not a flashcard dawgy
who are lawful visitors (4)
invitees
licenses
statutory right
contractual permission
what case confirmed that there is no longer an implied license at common law where a person is repeatedly allowed to trespass without being stopped
Lowery v Walker (1911)
invitees meaning
person who have been invited to enter and have express permission to be there such as customers in a shop
what section of OLA 1957 is this
s.1(2)
license meaning
persons who may have express or implied permission to be on the land from a particular period
what section of OLA 1957 is this
s.1(2)
statutory right meaning
those with statutory right to enter such as meter readers or police officers exercising a warrant
what section of OLA 1957 is this
s.2 (6)
contractual permission meaning (an e.g)
for example, a person who has brought an entry ticket for an event
what section of OLA 1957 is this
s.1(5)
what section of OLA 1957 is a common duty of care is owed under
s.2
what is the definition of this
an occupier should take such care that is reasonable to keep the visitor reasonably safe
whats a case to back this
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme 2002
what does this case also state
common duty of care imposes a duty on the occupier to keep the visitor reasonably safe, not necessarily to maintain completely safe premises
how does this protect defendants
Protects defendants from not having to pay out of claimants silly mistakes
who are the exceptions
children
tradesperson
tradespeople and rescuers
independent contractors
would these people be the claimants or defendants
claimants
what section of OLA 57 state the rule about children
s.2 (3) (a)
what does this state
occupiers should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, especially with ‘allurements’ (appealing e.g a zoo)
what are 3 cases that suggest rules for this
idk why the first one highlighted g, anyways your doing good carry on!!! love you and me xx
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor 1922
Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council 2000
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor 1922 rule
Should be careful protect children
Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955
rule
Parents should watch out for children
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council 2000 rule
foreseeable as an allurement then D must protect against it
what section of OLA 57 state the rule about independant contractors
s.2(4) OLA 1957
what does this state
states that the occupier owes a common duty of care to visitors, but if a visitor is injured due to the negligence of work done on that land by an independent contractor, the occupier will not be liable as long as
as long as what 3 things
It was reasonable to give the work to that contractor (e.g. complicated work needs a specialist)
The contractor must be competent to do the work (e.g. has references/reviews/insurance)
The occupier must check the work has been properly done – and could require an architect or surveyor if it is complicated work
It was reasonable to give the work to that contractor (e.g. complicated work needs a specialist) case
Haseldine v Daw &Son Ltd 1941
The contractor must be competent to do the work (e.g. has references/reviews/insurance) case
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club 2003
The occupier must check the work has been properly done – and could require an architect or surveyor if it is complicated work case
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings 1945
what are the 4 defenses that can be used
contributary negligence
consent
warning signs
exclusion clauses
what part of OLA tells us warning can be ineffective if…
s.2(4) OLA 1957
what does this state
If D has warned visitors of potential dangers then this will act as a complete defence to a claim of occupiers’ liability
what does s.2(5) OLA 1957 state
There is also no need to warn people against a risk which is obvious
what case backs s.2(4) OLA 1957
Rae 1990
what case backs s.2(5) OLA 1957 state
Staples 1995
what’s an exclusion clause
allows an occupier to limit their liability
so soz this in a shit order but whats the section for tradespeople/ rescuers
s.2(3)(b)
what does this state
occupiers can expect tradesman to be aware of the ordinary risks involved in their work
case for dis von
Roles v Nathan
