OCCUPIERS LIABILITY - LAWFUL VISITORS OLA 1957 Flashcards
1
Q
Source
A
- Duty is set out in the occupiers liability act 1957
- creates a duty of care towards lawful visitors
2
Q
Parties
A
- D must be occupier
- someone who has a degree of control over the building
- (wheat v Lacon)
3
Q
Premises
A
- D must be the ‘occupier of a premises which includes land & building + fixed & movable structures on land
- broadly defined at common la - incudes fire escapes (Keown v Coventry) s1(3)
4
Q
Parties - Claimant
A
- C must be a lawful visitor
- a person who has been invited or has permission to be on the premises
- people with a licences
- persons with a legal right (police/emergency services)
- persons with contractural right (paid for entry S1(2)
5
Q
Lowery v Walker
A
- everyone walked through field, and the D put an aggressive horse in which attacked C
- claimant was a lawful visitor
6
Q
Duty of care - S1(1)
A
- a common duty applies to all lawful visitor
7
Q
Duty of care - S.2(2)
A
- duty is to”take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the visitor is reasonably safe using the premisses they are permitted to be there”
8
Q
Breach
A
- an objective test is applied to decide if they are in breach - have they reached the standard of care expected of the reasonable occupier of the premises or not?
9
Q
Breach - children
A
- S2(3)(a) explains a higher duty of care towards visitors who are children
- this is because children are “less careful”
- allurements should be removed as they attract children
- can escape liability if a child was not properly supervised
10
Q
Jolley v Sutton
A
- alluments should be removed
- boat in park
11
Q
Rochester v Phipps
A
- an occupier can escape liability if a young child wasn’t properly supervised
12
Q
Breach - tradesmen
A
- sS2(3)(b) - occupier owes a lower standard of care if damage is caused by them doing something associated with their calling
- this is because they should know the risks
13
Q
Nathan v Roles
A
- chimney sweeper CO poisoning
- should have known the risk
14
Q
Breach - warnings/signs
A
- S2(4)(a) - occupier can avoid liability by providing sufficient & effective warnings which imply with their duty
- some dangers are so obvious they don’t need a sign (cotton)
- Rae v Mars - warning in dark shed insufficient
15
Q
Breach - indepedent contractor
A
- S2(4)(b) - occupier is not liable for damage to visitor caused by an independent contractor providing that:
- (a) it was reasonable to use a contractor
- (b) D must have checked they were competent
16
Q
Ways an occupier can avoid liability
A
- warnings & signs
- don’t have to warn about a obvious risk - Darby v National trust (drowned in lake used for swimming - an obvious risk)
17
Q
Defences
A
- (1) victims consent to the risk will be a full defence
- (2) contributory negligence - set out in law reform act 1945 (Froom v Butcher)
18
Q
Remedy
A
- under OLA 1957 a claimant visitor can claim for a age which is death, personal injury & property damage
- the rules of factual causation & remoteness apply
19
Q
A
