occupiers' liability ( paper 2 part b) Flashcards
OLA 1957
duty to those on land with permission
s1(1) OLA57
Doc exists if ‘danger due to the state of the premises’ ( is the danger due to the premises?)
Matin v Middlesbrough
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
occupier means
anyone/ person in control of the premises
Wheat v E Lacon & Co
HL held both manager& owner were occupiers- neither liable as accident occurred due to bad lighting ( removed by a stranger)
s1(3)OLA57
premises includes ‘land, building and any fixed or removable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
s2(1)OLA57
occupier of premises owes the common DOC to all his visitors
lawful visitor
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
type of visitor
-children
-adults
-skilled workers
i) person’s exercising a calling
ii) independent contractor
Jolley (children & allurement)
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
s2(2)OLA57
take all reasonable steps so the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of which they are invited for
Cole v Davis-Gilbert
Standard of care is the same as for ordinary negligence
Laverton ( Adults)
CA-D’s had taken reasonable care to ensure customers were safe. Customers can take reasonable care of their own safety
Clare v Perry (Adults)
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
s2(3)(a) OLA57
*standard of care towards children ( check ages)
occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.
Phipps ( children)
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)
s2(3)(b)OLA57
*standard of care towards a tradesperson
eg: someone working on the property-builder
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
Roles v Nathan
the occupiers would expect sweeps to be aware of this particular danger & these sweeps had also been warned
s2(4)(b) OLA57
*standard of care towards independent contractors (tradesmen)
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
Bottomley v Cricket club
CA decided that the club was liable as it had failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors
Haseldine and Daw
*too complex
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.
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
*not too complex
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
Maguire v Sefton MBC
Council weren’t liable as they had a service agreement with a competent, independent contractor for inspecting and maintaining equipment.
Causation
once C has shown that DOC exist and has been broken, C must show that D’s action caused the reasonably foreseeable loss
Defences
1) contributory negligence
2) volenti
Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc
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
Rae v Mars
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)
