Occupiers Liability S.57

Question 1

Lowery v Walker

Answer 1

Section 1: express or implied permission -> a licencee who has entered the premises for a long time as a trespasser, without complaint

Question 2

Wheat v E. Lacon and Co

Answer 2

D must be the occupier with control of the premises

Question 3

Wheeler v Copas

Answer 3

Section 1(3)(a)
premises -> "any fixed or moveable structure, inc any vessel, vehicle & aircraft. or even ladder

Question 4

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Answer 4

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"

Question 5

Vaughan v Menlove/ Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 5

ADULT/CHILD C
must take reasonable precautions to keep c reasonably safe (not completely), and will be compared to the reasonable occupier

Question 6

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC

Answer 6

ADULT/CHILD C

standard of care compared to the reasonably competent professional occupier

Question 7

Bolton v Stone

Answer 7

ADULT/CHILD C

size of risk of harm… application

Question 8

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Answer 8

ADULT/CHILD C

cost and practicality of reducing the size of risk of harm

Question 9

Roles v Nathan

Answer 9

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”

Question 10

Ogwo v Taylor

Answer 10

SKILLED
Section 2(3)(b)
doesn't apply to rescuers e.g firemen

Question 11

Perry v Butlins Holiday World

Answer 11

CHILD
Section 2(3)(a)
D “must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”

Question 12

Moloney v Lambeth BC

Answer 12

CHILD

a child is more at risk than an adult so d’s standard of care will be judged subjectively and will be higher

Question 13

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Answer 13

CHILD

D must guard against any risk of allurement

Question 14

Jolly v Sutton

Answer 14

CHILD

if there’s an allurement, there will only be liability if the injury was reasonably foreseeable

Question 15

Lindley v Yorkshire CC

Answer 15

CHILD

if injury was reasonably foreseeable… or without previous warnings

Question 16

Phipps v Rochester

Answer 16

CHILD

very young children must be supervised by their parents

Question 17

Ferguson v Welsh

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Answer 18

IND CON

D must show they took reasonable steps to check Z was competent

Question 19

Haseldine v Daw

Answer 19

IND CON

D checked any ‘non-technical’ work had been properly done

Question 20

Rae v Mars

Answer 20

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"

Question 21

Darby v Narional Trust

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Sayers v Harlow

Answer 22

d