occupiers liability- tort law

Question 1

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Answer 1

. an occupier of premises owes a DOC to lawful visitors, and if the duty has been breached and the visitor is entitled to receive compensation

Question 2

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Answer 2

. an occupier owes trespassers a DOC but to a lower standard than lawful visitors

Question 3

occupiers- Wheat v Lacon 1966

Answer 3

. manager of pub was given right to rent out rooms in a private area
. manager did not own premises
. a paying guest fell down unlit staircase+ died> manager+ owner could be sued
>legal principle= an occupier must have “occupational control”+ may be more than 1 occupier

Question 4

occupiers- Harris v Birkenhead Corporation 1976

Answer 4

. local council served a compulsory purchase order (a public body forces sale) on a house
. council had not yet taken possession or made it secure
. a 4 year old child was injured in empty house
. court held that the council were occupiers because they were effectively in control of the premises

Question 5

occupiers- Bailey v Armes 1999

Answer 5

. Ds lived in flat above supermarket
. allowed son to play on roof; told him not to take friends up
. supermarket didn’t know
. boy took friend up> friend fell+ injured
. court held there could be no liability as neither the supermarket nor the Ds had sufficient control over the roof

Question 6

adults- Laverton v Kiapasha 2002

Answer 6

. Ds owned takeaway shop
. they fitted slip resistant tiles+ used mop when raining
. C went into shop when raining
>slipped+ broke her ankle
. c/a decided that D had taken reasonable care to ensure customer safety> not liable- did not have to make sure shop completely safe
. level of care owed-customers can be reasonably safe if they take reasonable care for their own safety

Question 7

adults- Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016

Answer 7

. C injured when he tripped+ fell over piece of concrete, protruding 2 inches from base of traffic bollard in precincts of cathedral
. c/a decided no occupier of premises could ensure the area around a building were maintained perfectly- accidents would still happen
. a visitor is reasonably safe even if there are visible defects in the road, which carry a foreseeable risk of causing accident

Question 8

adults- Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion 2007

Answer 8

. C injured when she trapped her foot in a hole on a village green where a maypole had been constructed previously
. claimed the British Legion had failed to properly fill the hole after the flagpole had been removed
. C won at first instance but failed in c/a
-court held that since her injury took place nearly 2 years after maypole had been in place> duty of Legion could not last that long- but there was no specific evidence to support this view, the hole must have been opened again by a stranger+ the incident was a pure accident

Question 9

children- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor 1922

Answer 9

. 7 year old died from eating poisonous berries picked from bush in public park
- not fenced off
. D was liable for death- occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
. if D allowed a child to enter premises, then those premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age

Question 10

children- Phipps v Rochester 1955

Answer 10

. 5 year old child was playing on open ground owned by Council with his 7 year old sister
. he fell down an open trench+ injured
. court held that parents were responsible for child falling into a trench on land used as a play area
. D was not liable

Question 11

children- Jolley v Sutton 2002

Answer 11

. council had failed to move an abandoned boat that had been on its land for 2 years
. children regularly played on the boat, which was a potential danger
. 2 14 year olds picked boat up> one injured when boat fell on them
. compensation succeeded in hc
-c/a- not liable
- hol reversed- it was foreseeable that children would play on boat- needed to take into account by occupier> Jolley won

Question 12

workers- Roles v Nathan 1963

Answer 12

. 2 chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning the chimney of a coke-fired boiler
. occupiers were not liable- they could have expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of the particular danger
. rule applies where tradesman visitor is injured by something related to their trade

Question 13

independent contractors- Haseldine v Daw & Son 1941

Answer 13

. C killed when a lift plunged to bottom of shaft
. occupier not liable for negligent repair of lift- this work is a highly specialist activity+ it was reasonable to give work to a specialist firm

Question 14

independent contractors- Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club 2003

Answer 14

. club hired stunt team to carry out firework display
. teams chose to use ordinary gunpowder, petrol+ propane gas
. then used the C for stunt, who was unpaid amateur
>C was burnt+ broke an arm when stunt went wrong
. team had no insurance
. c/a decided club was liable as it had failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe+ competent contractors

Question 15

independent contractors- Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings 1945

Answer 15

. child injured on school steps- left icy after snow cleared off them
. occupiers were liable- failed to take reasonable steps to check that work had been done properly+ danger should have been obvious to them

Question 16

s.2 (4)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Answer 16

. warning will be ineffective unless `in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’

Question 17

warning notices- Staples v West Dorset District Council 1995

Answer 17

. C fractured his hip- fell off a harbour wall that was covered in algae+ slippery when wet
. argued there was no warning sign of danger
. occupiers not liable- danger of wet algae on a high wall should have been obvious+ no further warning sign was required

Question 18

warning notices- Darby v National Trust 2001

Answer 18

. C’s husband drowned in pond by National Trust
. common for visitors to swim in pond in summer
. C argued because NT had not prevented swimmers using pond, they assumed pond was safe
. c/a decided that the risk to swimmers was obvious+ no duty on the NT to warn an obvious risk

Question 19

s.2 (1) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Answer 19

. an occupier is able to `restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise’
>occupier will (in oral or written warning) be able to limit our exclude completely their liability for an injury
- exclusion clauses working against a child visitor depends on age+ ability to understand effect of the exclusion

Question 20

s.65 Consumer Rights Act 2015

Answer 20

. `a trader cannot by a consumer contract or a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.’
>warnings are ineffective+ cannot operate as a defence to an occupier if a consumer is injured on the premises

Question 21

trespassers- British Rail v Herrington 1972

Answer 21

. overruled Addie v Dumbreck 1929 by HoL- used Practice Statement
. a duty is established if reasonable occupier would have concluded that there was a danger+ that it is likely that a trespasser would be there
. overruled because traditional rule was harsh for children> society changed
- occupier must have some liability based on principle of common humanity
. new position in relation to child trespassers= children owed more duty

Question 22

s1(3) Occupier Liability Act 1984

Answer 22

. `an occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor)’
. trespasser is person who goes onto land without invitation+ who’s presence is unknown to occupier, or if known, is objected to

Question 23

s.1(1) Occupier Liability Act 1984

Answer 23

. states that a duty applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors for: `injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them.’
. means trespassers can only claim for personal injury+ not property damage
-reflects idea that trespassers deserve less protection than lawful visitors

Question 24

trespassers- Swain v Natui Ram Puri 1996

Answer 24

. 9 year old boy injured- climbed onto occupier’s roof> injured when fell
. held that occupier did not have reasonable grounds to believe that child might enter vicinity of danger
- under s1(3) 1984

Question 25

trespassers- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003

Answer 25

. C had freely accepted risk of injury while swimming> Council were not under obligation to protect him under s1(3) 1984> not liable

Question 26

trespassers- Ratcliffe v McConnell 1999

Answer 26

. 19 year old student climbed fence of his open air college swimming pool at night+ dived into pool> hit head on bottom> seriously injured
.c/a said no DOC owed to trespasser
-partly because D had placed warning notices at shallow end
-no liability if danger obvious

Question 27

trespassers- Donoghue v Folkstone Properties 2003

Answer 27

. C injured when trespassing on slipway in harbour+ dived into sea, hitting grid pile used for mooring boats
. grid pile would be visible at low tide
. happened in middle of winter, around midnight
. court held D did not owe DOC- would not expect that a trespasser might be there or jump into sea at that time of year+day

Question 28

trespassers- Higgs v Foster 2004

Answer 28

. police officer investigating crime entered occupier’s premises to carry out surveillance> fell into uncovered inspection pit> several injuries> retired from police force
. officer was judged to be a trespasser on premises
:occupiers knew pit was a potential danger
. not liable- could not have anticipated his presence

Question 29

trespassers- Rhind v Astbury Water Park 2004

Answer 29

. occupier did not know of a submerged fibreglass container resting on bottom of lake
. C ignored notice saying `Private Property. Strictly no Swimming’
. jumped in lake+ injured by objects below surface of water
. not liable- no reason to suspect it existed>unaware

Question 30

child trespassers- Known v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust 2006

Answer 30

. 11 year old boy fell from fire escape on exterior of a hospital- showing off to his friends
. not liable- no duty existed
. danger existed because of boy’s actions on fire escape, the fire escape itself was not faulty

Question 31

child trespassers- Baldaccino v West Wittering 2008

Answer 31

. 14 year old boy climbed a navigational beacon sited off a beach as tide was receding
. dived off beacon> neck injuries+ tetraplegia
. lawful visitor to beach but trespasser to beacon
. not liable- decided there was no DOC+ no obligation to warn against obvious dangers

Question 32

child trespassers- Westwood v Post Office 1973

Answer 32

. adult employee of Post Office was injured when he entered an unlocked room, which had a warning of danger on door
. no liability for D- the notice on door was a sufficient warning for C- he was adult
: would be different outcome if child was injured