Occupiers Liability - Paper 2 Flashcards
What is meant by Occupiers Liability?
Where C is injured whilst on D’s land
Which Act would a lawful visitor claim under?
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
What does section 2(1) OLA 1957 state?
The occupier of premises owes a common duty of care to visitors
Occupier was defined by which judge in which case?
Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon
Which test did Lord Denning use to define occupier?
The sufficient control test
What is the definition of occupier?
A person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises that they ought to realise that any failure on their part to use care may result in injury to a person
Apart from defining occupier, what else did Wheat v Lacon establish?
That there can be multiple occupiers of the same premises
What is the definition of visitor?
Anyone who is invited or permitted to be on the land, express or implied
What is the definition of premises under section 1(3)(a)?
Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle, and aircraft
What does section 2(2) say about a common duty of care?
The occupier has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there
Which case held that the injury must be due to the state of the premises and not the activities of the visitor?
Darby v National Trust
What does it mean by the occupier must act reasonably?
Have they done or not done what a reasonable occupier would have done or not done, and the duty is only owed in respect of the purpose for which the visitor is permitted to be on the premises
What does section 2(3)(a) say about a duty owed to children?
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults as they may not see the dangers or appreciate the risks, therefore a higher duty is owed to children
What was the decision in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor?
An occupier should guard against any kind of allurement that place the child visitor at risk
Which case held that very young children should be supervised by parents and so occupiers may not be liable
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
What does section 2(3)(b) say about a duty owed to experts?
An occupier may expect that an expert will ‘appreciate and guard against risks that are in the exercise of their calling’
What does section 2(4)(b) say about negligence of independent contractors?
Occupier will not be liable for loss or injuries suffered by visitors when the cause of damage is the negligence of an independent contractor if two conditions are met
What is the first condition in which an occupier will not be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor?
It must have been reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to the independent contractor
What is the second condition in which an occupier will not be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor?
Occupier must have taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the contractor was competent and that the work was properly done
What was the decision in Haseldine v Daw?
If the work is of a complex or technical nature, it is less reasonable to impose an obligation and there is less the occupier has to do to make sure the task is done
How can an occupier discharge their duty?
Through warning signs or consent
What does the law say about warning signs?
They must be sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, so consider how effective the warning sign is
Which case held there is no specific obligation to display a warning when the danger is one that should be obvious to any visitor?
Cotton v Derbyshire Council
Why can an occupier discharge their duty through consent?
Because the visitor willingly accepts the risk
Which Act would a trespasser claim under?
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
What was the decision in British Railway Board v Herrington?
An occupier will owe a duty of ‘common humanity’ to trespassers, meaning they can’t deliberately injure or set traps for them
What does section 1(1) OLA 1984 state?
A duty is owed to trespassers for injuries caused by a danger due to the state of the premises
Section 1(3) sets out three conditions in which an occupier will owe trespassers a duty of care. What is the first condition under section 1(3)(a)?
The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
What is the second condition in which an occupier will owe a trespasser a duty under section 1(3)(b)?
The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is in the vicinity of the danger
What is the third condition in which an occupier will owe a trespasser a duty under section 1(3)(c)?
The risk is serious enough that the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection against it
When will an occupier have breached their duty towards a trespasser?
When they have not taken reasonable care to see that the trespasser does not suffer personal injury
What does section 1(5) OLA 1984 say about warnings?
An occupier may discharge their duty by taking reasonable steps to give warning of the danger or to discourage people, and the emphasis is on making the trespasser aware of why they shouldn’t come onto the premises
What is the rule regarding child trespassers?
They may not necessarily be expected to take notice of warning signs, therefore greater steps may need to be take by the occupier
