occupiers' liability ( paper 2 part b)

Question 1

OLA 1957

Answer 1

duty to those on land with permission

Question 2

s1(1) OLA57

Answer 2

Doc exists if ‘danger due to the state of the premises’ ( is the danger due to the premises?)

Question 3

Matin v Middlesbrough

Answer 3

Schoolchild slipped in playground and got injured by a broken milk bottle, local council was held liable as they had not made the adequate arrangements to dispose the bottle

Question 4

occupier means

Answer 4

anyone/ person in control of the premises

Question 5

Wheat v E Lacon & Co

Answer 5

HL held both manager& owner were occupiers- neither liable as accident occurred due to bad lighting ( removed by a stranger)

Question 6

s1(3)OLA57

Answer 6

premises includes ‘land, building and any fixed or removable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

Question 7

s2(1)OLA57

Answer 7

occupier of premises owes the common DOC to all his visitors

Question 8

lawful visitor

Answer 8

someone who had express or implied permission from occupier to enter premises

i) invites- someone invented on the property
ii) licenses-person who has expressed or implied permission
iii) contractual permission- person who bought an entry ticket
iv) statutory rights of entry-meter reader or police with a warrant

Question 9

type of visitor

Answer 9

-children
-adults
-skilled workers
i) person’s exercising a calling
ii) independent contractor

Question 10

Jolley (children & allurement)

Answer 10

the occupier is under a duty to protect a child from danger caused by ‘meddling with such object’ by taking reasonable steps in the circumstances, including where appropriate, removing the object altogether so as to avoid the prospect of injury

Question 11

s2(2)OLA57

Answer 11

take all reasonable steps so the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of which they are invited for

Question 12

Cole v Davis-Gilbert

Answer 12

Standard of care is the same as for ordinary negligence

Question 13

Laverton ( Adults)

Answer 13

CA-D’s had taken reasonable care to ensure customers were safe. Customers can take reasonable care of their own safety

Question 14

Clare v Perry (Adults)

Answer 14

the risk of an accidental fall was different from someone deliberately climbing the wall. Court would take into account the behaviour reasonably expected of a visitor. C’s behaviour was unexpected and foolish

Question 15

s2(3)(a) OLA57

*standard of care towards children ( check ages)

Answer 15

occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.

Question 16

Phipps ( children)

Answer 16

it’s assumed that no sensible parent would allow such young children to enter the area in question alone, without at least checking the risk for themselves.

*compare with Jolly( counsel & boat)

Question 17

s2(3)(b)OLA57

*standard of care towards a tradesperson
eg: someone working on the property-builder

Answer 17

occupier need not take special precautions to protect the person against such a risk( any risk which arises in the course of the person’s work), so long they allow the person to take their own precaution

Question 18

Roles v Nathan

Answer 18

the occupiers would expect sweeps to be aware of this particular danger & these sweeps had also been warned

Question 19

s2(4)(b) OLA57

*standard of care towards independent contractors (tradesmen)

Answer 19

i) reasonable steps to ensure contractor is competent
ii) if the nature of the work allows it, to check whether the work is done properly

Question 20

Bottomley v Cricket club

Answer 20

CA decided that the club was liable as it had failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors

Question 21

Haseldine and Daw

*too complex

Answer 21

Court agreed they had fulfilled their DOC because the occupiers hired an apparently competent firm and due to the technical nature of the work meant they couldn’t be expected to check whether it had been done properly.

Question 22

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

*not too complex

Answer 22

occupiers held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to check whether the work had been properly done, because the nature of the work was such that it could be easily checked

Question 23

Maguire v Sefton MBC

Answer 23

Council weren’t liable as they had a service agreement with a competent, independent contractor for inspecting and maintaining equipment.

Question 24

Causation

Answer 24

once C has shown that DOC exist and has been broken, C must show that D’s action caused the reasonably foreseeable loss

Question 25

Defences

Answer 25

1) contributory negligence
2) volenti

Question 26

Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc

Answer 26

claim failed because she admitted that she was aware of the obvious risk in sliding down the bannisters and she chose to take the risk. In these circumstances, D didn’t have a duty to protect her

Question 27

Rae v Mars

Answer 27

Court found that even if he had been issued a warning, this would not be enough to keep visitors safe and the occupiers had a duty to go further and provide some sort of barrier around the pit (not enough-go above & beyond)