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