Occupiers Liabilty

Question 1

Occupiers Liabilty

Answer 1

1. Occupier
2. Premises
3. Lawful visitor or trespasser

Question 2

Occupier Liability Act 1957

Answer 2

Lawful Visitors

Question 3

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Answer 3

Trespassers

Question 4

Occupier

Answer 4

Def. ‘a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to out him under a duty of care towards those who come lawfully on to the premises’

• The individual that occupies the premises, this could be an owner, a tenant, or a resident

Question 5

Wheat v Lacon and Co. Ltd

Answer 5

Facts: C feel and died when going down stairs in a pub, there was no light and the handrail did not extend the full way of the staircase - the room was rented out by the manager and the pub was owned by the brewery

Held: there can be multiple occupiers

• an occupier is ‘a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises’
• both Lacon & Co and the manager were considered joint occupiers

Question 6

S1(3)(a) OL Act 1957

Answer 6

Defines premises as any ‘fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’

Question 7

What are the 4 categories of adult visitors who are covered by the OL Act 1957?

Answer 7

Licensees: people permitted onto premises for certain time/purpose - e.g. postmen
Invitees: e.g. family members visiting relatives
Contractual Permission: e.g. purchase of a ticket to a football match
Statutory right: e.g. emergency services

Question 8

S2(2) OLA 1957 what/who is necessary to be kept safe?

Answer 8

• The visitor

- Adults

Question 9

S2(2) OLA 1957 to what standard is the visitor to be kept safe?

Answer 9

• To a reasonable standard not perfect
• Adults are owed the common duty of care and are also expected to demonstrate a reasonable level of responsibility for their own safety

Question 10

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Answer 10

Facts: C fell over concrete raised about an inch above the road surface - C suffered a shoulder injury and a hernia
- his wife had passed through uninsured immediately before

Held: “tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences - occupier must make land reasonably safe for visitors, not guarantee their safety”

Question 11

S2(3)(a) OLA 1957

Answer 11

Alters the standard of care for children

- ‘an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’

Question 12

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation

Answer 12

Facts: 7 yr old visited public gardens and ate some berries from one of the plants
- berries poisonous and the boy died as a result - there were no warning signs and the area was not fenced off

Held: liable

• the berries would have been an ‘allurement’ to children
• the courts recognised children were expected to be less careful than adults
• the Ds were aware the berries were poisonous and offered no protection

Question 13

Bourne Leisure v Marsden

Answer 13

Facts: 2 1/2 yr old boy drowned in a pond on a holiday park whilst under the care of his parents
- the parents sought a claim of OL against the park upon the pond should’ve been fenced/danger should’ve been made aware

Held: although parents were not at fault, this does not automatically impose fault on the Ds

Question 14

S2(3)(b) OLA 1957

Answer 14

Alters the standard of care for skilled visitors

• ‘an occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.’
• i.e. an occupier can expect a tradesman to guard against ordinary risks associated with his profession - the C does not owe a duty to warn skilled visitors of risks associated with their profession

Question 15

Roles v Nathan

Answer 15

Facts: 2 chimney sweeps contracted to seal the flutes in a central heating system - the flutes had become dangerous due to carbon monoxide

• a heating engineer warned the brother of the dangers which they stated they understood and had years of experience
• the levels of carbon monoxide rose and the heating engineer ordered everyone to leave until the next day
• they came back in the evening and were both found dead the next day

Held: it is reasonable to expect that tradesmen will guard against the risk of their trade, especially ones they were warned against

Question 16

2 ways the duty/breach of duty can be discharged

Answer 16

1. Independent contractors

2. Warning signs

Question 17

S2(4)(b) OLA 1957

Answer 17

• if the fault on the premises is caused by the negligence of an independent contractor, the occupier may be able to pass on the claims to the independent contractor and be absolved form liability

Question 18

What are the 3 requirements in order to pass the claim to the independent contractor?

Answer 18

• All 3 need to be satisfied

1. It must be reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to the independent contractor
2. The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task (courts look at the steps the occupier has taken to ensure hat they are hiring a qualified and competent independent contractor - experience and qualifications of the contractor)
3. The occupier must check the work has been done properly (or employ another professional to check it fi it is complex)

Question 19

Alexander v Freshwater Properties

Answer 19

Facts: C suffered injury to finger when it became caught in the front door of the block of flats she lived in - resulted in partial amputation of her finger

• The occupiers had employed an independent contractor to refurbish the door handles
• The independent contractor left the refurbishment incomplete, know to the occupier

Held: both the occupier and the independent contractor were found jointly liable

Question 20

S2(4) OLA 1957

Answer 20

• ‘where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’
• i.e. a warning notice provided by the occupier does not automatically absolve a defendant occupier of liability
• however it may do if the warning is enough to keep the claimant reasonably safe

Question 21

English Heritage v Taylor

Answer 21

Facts: the C was visiting a castle at an English heritage site

• walking along grass moat when he fell into a dry moat
• no warning sign, 12 ft drop
• the drop was not visible

Held: the sheer drop was an obvious danger and the occupier should have taken reasonable steps to protect visitors to the premises
- English heritage were in breach of their duty by failing to provide an adequate warning sign

Question 22

Occupier Liability Act 1984

Answer 22

Outlines the duty of care owed by the occupiers of premises to those other than lawful visitors (trespassers)

• Lawful visitors may be regarded as trespassers when they enter premises for a different purpose than their lawful right of entry
• specifies the circumstances in which a dirty to protect against personal injury will be owing against a trespasser, there are 3 conditions all of which must be fulfilled

Question 23

s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Answer 23

‘An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being a visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) if:

(A) he is aware of the danger or his reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
(B) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not ) and
(C) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection

Question 24

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Answer 24

(A) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

Facts:

Held: the occupier was not liable
- they did not know of the dangerous objects

Question 25

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 25

(B) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not)

Facts:

Held: the Ds were not liable

• in recent years the college has taken steps to prevent trespassers
• by surrounding the pools w 7 foot high fences, a locked gate and a prohibited use of the pool in the stated hours, the college had offered a reasonable level of protection
• occupiers are not required to warn adults of obvious danger

Question 26

S4 OLA 1984

Answer 26

(C) the risk is one against which, in all circumstance of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection

The duty: to take reasonable care to avoid personal injury

Factors that affect reasonableness: nature of the premises

Question 27

Tomlinson v Congleton Council

Answer 27

Held: individuals must take responsibility for their own actions

• no risk arose from the sate of the premises s1(1) OLA 1984 but arose form the Ds own actions
• the risk was not one the council would reasonably be expected to offer protection as the dangers were obvious
• D had also out up effective warning notices