Occupiers Liability S.57 Flashcards
Lowery v Walker
Section 1: express or implied permission -> a licencee who has entered the premises for a long time as a trespasser, without complaint
Wheat v E. Lacon and Co
D must be the occupier with control of the premises
Wheeler v Copas
Section 1(3)(a) premises -> "any fixed or moveable structure, inc any vessel, vehicle & aircraft. or even ladder
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
ADULT/CHILD C Section 2(2) D must "take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited"
Vaughan v Menlove/ Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
ADULT/CHILD C
must take reasonable precautions to keep c reasonably safe (not completely), and will be compared to the reasonable occupier
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
ADULT/CHILD C
standard of care compared to the reasonably competent professional occupier
Bolton v Stone
ADULT/CHILD C
size of risk of harm… application
Latimer v AEC Ltd
ADULT/CHILD C
cost and practicality of reducing the size of risk of harm
Roles v Nathan
SKILLED
Section 2(3)(b)
D can expect a skilled visitor when carrying out work will “appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to it”
Ogwo v Taylor
SKILLED Section 2(3)(b) doesn't apply to rescuers e.g firemen
Perry v Butlins Holiday World
CHILD
Section 2(3)(a)
D “must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”
Moloney v Lambeth BC
CHILD
a child is more at risk than an adult so d’s standard of care will be judged subjectively and will be higher
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
CHILD
D must guard against any risk of allurement
Jolly v Sutton
CHILD
if there’s an allurement, there will only be liability if the injury was reasonably foreseeable
Lindley v Yorkshire CC
CHILD
if injury was reasonably foreseeable… or without previous warnings
Phipps v Rochester
CHILD
very young children must be supervised by their parents
Ferguson v Welsh
IND CON Section 2(4)(b) D may be able to pass liability onto an independent contractor because the state of the premises was due to them
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
IND CON
D must show they took reasonable steps to check Z was competent
Haseldine v Daw
IND CON
D checked any ‘non-technical’ work had been properly done
Rae v Mars
DEFENCE Section 2(4)(a) an oral/written warning can be a full defence if it is effective so that "it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe"
Darby v Narional Trust
Section 2(4)(a)
a warning may be less effective in respect of a child, depending in age & understanding
&
DEFENCE
Section 2(5)
Volenti non fit Injuria (consent) is a full defence where C fully understood the nature of the risk rather than just aware of its existence and excercised free choice
Sayers v Harlow
d
