Occupiers liability to lawful visitors

Question 1

definition of occupiers’ liability to lawful visitors

Answer 1

• loss or injury caused by the ‘state of the premises’ of which D is the occupier
• OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957 - for lawful visitors

Question 2

steps of OLA

Answer 2

1. occupiers
2. premises
3. danger due to the state of the premises
4. lawful visitor?
5. duty of care for lawful visitors
6. breach of duty
   6b. children - standard of care
   6c. tradespeople - standard of care
7. causation

Question 3

step 1 definition and case

Answer 3

• the oerson in control of the premises, may be owner or tenant of premises but doesn’t have to be

WHEAT V LACON
there can be more than one occupier of the premises

Question 4

step 2 case

Answer 4

S.1(3)(A) OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957

fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft

Question 5

step 3 definition and case

Answer 5

look for the danger and is the danger due to the state of the premises
DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL V DEBELL
must be a real source of danger for occupier to be under a duty to minimise the risk

Question 6

step 4

4 different types of visitors and examples

Answer 6

invitees - people who have been invited to enter and have express permission to be there e.g friends

licenses - people who have express or implied permission to be on the land for a period e.g customers, people carrying out work

contractual permission - e.g someone who brought a ticket for an event

statutory right of entry - e.g meter readers, police officers with a warrant

Question 7

step 5 cases

Answer 7

S.2(1) OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT 1957
occupiers owes a lawful visitor the common duty of care
S.2(2)
common duty of care. take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances ti see that the visitor will be reasonably safe using the premises for the purpose for which he Is invited to be there.

Question 8

step 6 definition and case

Answer 8

• same for all lawful visitors - failure to reach the standard if the ‘reasonable man’

LAVERTON V KIAPASHA TAKEAWAY SPREME
occupier doesn’t have to make property completely safe - only what is reasonable.

Question 9

step 6b cases

Answer 9

owed the common duty of care S.2(1) and S.2(2)

• plus additional duty - S.2(3)-
  occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults - premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age
• standard of care measured according to the age of the child
• GLASGOW CORPORATION V TAYLOR - occupier must guard against any allurement to a child
• JOLLEY V LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON- if it is foreseeable that an allurement could pose danger, the damage or injury caused doesn’t have to be foreseeable - also relevant to causation
  -PHIPPS V ROCHESTER CORPORATION
  if a child is very young, occupier not liable as he is entitled to expect that parents should not allow their young children to go to places which are potentially unsafe.

Question 10

step 6c cases

Answer 10

owed the common duty of care S.2(1) and S.2(2)

• but S.2(3) - occupier can expect a tradesperson will appreciate and guard against any special risks they should know about
• ROLES V NATHAN - occupier will not be liable where tradespersons fails to guard against risks they should know about

Question 11

1 rule I step 6c ?

Answer 11

rule only applies when tradesperson injured by something related to his trade - if tradesperson injured by something different, occupier will still owe the common duty.

Question 12

step 7 definition

Answer 12

breach must lead to the damage - same as normal negligence causation