Occupiers Liability S.84

Question 1

British Railways Board v Herrington

Answer 1

established a “duty of common humanity”

Question 2

Addie v Dumbreck

Answer 2

common law definition of trespasser: “someone who goes on land without any sort of permission and whose presence is unknown to the occupier or, if known, is objected to.”

Question 3

Tomlinson v Congleton BC

Answer 3

C is a trespasser without permission to be on D’s property because…

Question 4

Wheat v E.Lacon and Co

Answer 4

D must be occupier with control of the premises

Question 5

Wheeler v Copas

Answer 5

“premises” must fall within the very wide definition

Question 6

Keown v Coventry NHS Trust

Answer 6

S1(1) a duty of care is owed in respect of an injury caused by a “danger due to the state of the premises”

Question 7

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Answer 7

S1(3) -> 1. D must be aware of danger/have reasonable grounds to believe it exists

Question 8

Higgs v Foster

Answer 8

S1(3) -> 2. D must have known/have reasonable grounds to believe C was in/may come into the vicinity of the danger. X “unexpected trespasser”

Question 9

Ratcliff v McConnel

Answer 9

S1(3) -> 3. the risk is something D is expected to offer some protection against. X “obvious dangers”

Question 10

Vaughan v Menlove, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 10

S1(4) standard of care compared to the reasonable occupier

Question 11

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC

Answer 11

S1(4) standard of care compared to the reasonably competent professional occupier

Question 12

Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2)

Answer 12

S1(4) cost and practicality of reducing the risk of harm

Question 13

Jolley v Sutton

Answer 13

S1(4) age of trespasser, especially when theres an allurement

Question 14

Baldaccino v West Wittering

Answer 14

S1(4) X “obvious dangers”… may apply to older childre

Question 15

Donoghue v Folkestone

Answer 15

S1(4) D entitled to expect a trespasser will not engage in foolhardy activities/ where expertise should make them aware of the danger

Question 16

Westwood v Post Office

Answer 16

S1(5) DEFENCE: oral/written warning, can be full if effective but less effective in respect of a child (depend age/understanding)

Question 17

Sayers v Harlow

Answer 17

DEFENCE: the law reform (contributory negligence) act 1945, where damages can be reduced by a % depending on extent C contributed to their own injuries