O.L Flashcards
What is occupiers’ liability and its significance in tort law?
Definition: Occupiers’ liability is a branch of tort law that deals with the duty of care owed by those who occupy land or premises to ensure that their property is safe for visitors and others.
Statutes:
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: Applies to lawful visitors.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984: Applies to trespassers and non-visitors.
Wheat v E Lacon [1966]: Definition of an occupier.
Who is considered an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts? (def, legal right, practical, multiple, case)
Definition: An occupier is someone with sufficient control over premises, either legally or practically, such that they should realize a lack of care might cause harm.
Legal Right: Typically the owner or tenant.
Practical Control: Anyone with control over the property (e.g., managers).
Multiple Occupiers: More than one person can be an occupier.
Wheat v E Lacon [1966]: Established that both owner and tenant can be occupiers.
How are visitors and non-visitors defined under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts? (where defined, case)
Visitors:
Defined under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Includes those with express or implied permission.
Case Reference: Robson v Hallett [1967]: Implied permission to approach a house.
Non-Visitors:
Defined under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
Includes trespassers and others without permission.
Case Reference: British Railways Board v Herrington [1972]: Introduced the duty of common humanity to trespassers.
What is the common duty of care owed to visitors under the OLA 1957 (Section 2(2)?
Duty: To take reasonable care to ensure that visitors will be safe for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be on the premises.
Applies to foreseeable risks and reasonable steps.
Duty is to keep the visitor safe, not the premises.
What are the special duties owed to children and skilled visitors under the OLA 1957?
Children:
Enhanced duty due to their lack of care.
Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955]
Glasgow Corp v Taylor [1922]
Skilled Visitors:
Lowered duty as they are expected to guard against special risks.
Roles v Nathan [1963]
What is the duty of care owed to non-visitors (trespassers) under the OLA 1984 (Section 1(3) (when is duty owed + cases)
SECTION 1(3)
Duty is owed if:
Occupier is aware of the danger. Swain v Natui Ram Puri [1996]: Actual knowledge required.
Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity.
The risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer protection.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003]: No duty for obvious risks.
How can occupiers discharge their duty through warnings and independent contractors? (+4cases)
Warnings:
Must be sufficient to enable visitors to be reasonably safe. Roles v Nathan [1963]: Effective warnings can discharge duty.
Darby v National Trust [2001]: No need to warn of obvious risks.
Independent Contractors:
Occupiers not liable if they act reasonably in hiring and supervising contractors.
Case References:
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2003]: Duty to check contractor’s insurance.
Haseldine v Daw [1941]: Specialist work requires specialist supervision.
What is the structure for answering a problem question on occupiers’ liability?
- Identify the Parties and Their Status
Determine if the claimant is a visitor or non-visitor.
Case References: Wheat v E Lacon [1966] for occupiers; Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955] for children.
2. Establish the Duty of Care
Visitors (OLA 1957): Duty to ensure reasonable safety.
Case References: Robson v Hallett [1967], Darby v National Trust [2001].
Non-Visitors (OLA 1984): Duty if aware of danger and likely presence of trespasser.
Case References: Swain v Natui Ram Puri [1996], Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003].
3. Analyze the Breach of Duty
Did the occupier take reasonable steps to ensure safety?
Consider special circumstances (children, skilled visitors).
Case References: Roles v Nathan [1963], Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955].
4. Consider Defenses and Exclusions
Warnings: Were they adequate?
Case References: Roles v Nathan [1963], Darby v National Trust [2001].
Volenti/Acceptance of Risk: Did the claimant willingly accept the risk?
Case References: Ratcliff v McConnell [1999].
Contributory Negligence: Was the claimant partly at fault?
Case References: Revill v Newbery [1996].
5. Conclude with Likely Outcomes
Summarize the likelihood of the claim succeeding based on the analysis.
Suggest appropriate remedies (damages, injunctions).
Key cases OLA 1957? (Wheat v E Lacon [1966], Darby v National Trust [2001], Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922])
Wheat v E Lacon [1966]:
Facts: The claimant fell down an unlit staircase in a pub owned by the defendant.
Held: Both the owner and the manager of the pub were considered occupiers, as they had control over the premises.
Significance: Defined ‘occupier’ as anyone with sufficient control over the premises.
Darby v National Trust [2001]:
Facts: The claimant’s husband drowned in a pond on National Trust property where there were no warning signs.
Held: The risk of drowning was obvious, so no duty to warn was owed.
Significance: Established that occupiers are not required to warn against obvious risks.
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922]:
Facts: A child died after eating poisonous berries in a public park.
Held: The presence of the berries was an allurement, and the occupiers were liable for not taking steps to prevent children from accessing the berries.
Significance: Introduced the doctrine of allurement, particularly relevant to child visitors.
Key cases OLA 1984? (British Railways Board v Herrington [1972], Swain v Natui Ram Puri [1996], Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003])
British Railways Board v Herrington [1972]:
Facts: A child was injured after trespassing on railway lines.
Held: The occupiers were liable as they were aware of the danger and the likelihood of trespassers.
Significance: Introduced the duty of common humanity towards trespassers.
Swain v Natui Ram Puri [1996]:
Facts: A child was injured while trespassing on a factory roof.
Held: The occupiers were not liable as they had no actual knowledge of the risk.
Significance: Highlighted the requirement of actual knowledge for the duty of care under the 1984 Act.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003]:
Facts: The claimant was injured while diving into a lake, despite warning signs prohibiting swimming.
Held: The occupiers were not liable as the risk was obvious and the claimant chose to ignore the warnings.
Significance: Confirmed that occupiers are not liable for obvious risks, even to trespassers.
What defenses and exclusions are available under occupiers’ liability? (including cases + CRA 2015)
Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent): If the claimant willingly accepted the risk.
Ratcliff v McConnell [1999]
Contributory Negligence: If the claimant was partly at fault for their injuries.
Revill v Newbery [1996]
Exclusion Notices: Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, exclusions must be reasonable and cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury.
Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd [1957]: Exclusion notices must be clear and visible.
Consumer Rights Act 2015: Cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
What does Section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 cover? (s1(1),(2),(3))
Section 1(1): Applies to the duty of care that an occupier of premises owes to visitors.
Section 1(2): Refers to the common law to identify who is considered an occupier.
Section 1(3): Defines ‘premises’ broadly, including land, buildings, and fixed or movable structures like vehicles and aircraft.
What duties are owed to children and skilled visitors under OLA 1957? (+ cases)
Children:
Enhanced duty of care due to lack of care and inquisitiveness.
Case References: Glasgow Corp v Taylor [1922], Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955].
Skilled Visitors:
Expected to guard against risks related to their expertise.
Case Reference: Roles v Nathan [1963].
What does the OLA 1984 Section 1 cover for trespassers?
Section 1: Applies to occupiers’ duty towards non-visitors (trespassers).
How did the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 change the common law regarding occupiers’ liability? (Section2(2))
Abolished common law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and contractual visitors.
Introduced a single duty of care to all lawful visitors, called the “common duty of care.”
Section 2(2): Duty to take such care as is reasonable to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe.
What is the public policy influence in OLA ‘57 (s2(1) + s3(1)?
Public Policy Influence:
Public policy aims to prevent unfair exclusion of liability by occupiers, ensuring protection for visitors.
Section 2(1): Occupiers can restrict, modify, or exclude their duty of care only to the extent that it is reasonable and visible. Ashdown v. Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd
Section 3(1): Contracts cannot exclude duty of care owed to third parties unaware of the contract.
