OL Flashcards
What is occupiers’ liability?
Concerns the liability of an occupier of land for the claimants injury, loss or damage to property suffered whilst on an occupier’s premises.
The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957: lawful visitors
1984: trespassers covered for injuries but not loss or damage to property
Who is an occupier?
Owner, tenants other persons, Lord Denning describes an occupier as who had ‘sufficient degree of control over the premises’
Case eg: Wheat v E.Lacon & Co Ltd- Ds were brewers who owned a public house which they entrusted a licensee to manage. Claimant was staying in ground floor of premises as paying guests. One might the husband fell down a dimly lit staircase fractured his skull and died. Court held that Ds retained occupation and owed the visitors a duty of care. However Denning MR held that despite the staircase being unlit it wasn’t dangerous if used with appropriate care therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
4 year old wandered off from from a park with her friend and entered a derelict house which was due for demolition. The house hadn’t been secured and the door was open. They went upstairs and Julie sustained serious injury falling from a window. Council were liable.
Bailey v Armes
D lived in a flat above a supermarket and they allowed their son to play on the flat roof. The boy took his friend up to the roof were he fell and injured himself. The supermarket nor Ds were liable as they didn’t have sufficient control over the roof.
What is a premises?
- Open spaces of land
- Fixed structures eg. Offices, factories
- Movable structures eg. Scaffolding, caravans
- Certain transportation vehicles eg. Trains, ships
What are lawful visitors?
Invitees, licensees, contractual permission, statutory right to enter
Children owed greater duty of care by occupiers
Duty of an occupier
- A distinction must be made between dangers arising from activities on the premises and danger arising from state of premises, under occupiers’ liability the duty arises under the second circumstance.
- The occupier only has to do what is reasonable and doesn’t need to make the visitor completely safe.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
D owned a takeaway which had slip resistant tiles when they used a mop and bucket to mop the floor when it rained. The claimant slipped and broke her ankle. Court of Supreme decided the owners had taken reasonable care to ensure customers were safe and weren’t liable.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
The claimant was injured while walking with ing the precincts of the cathedral. He tripped and fell over a small lump of concrete protruding from the base of a traffic bollard. Tripping is seen as an everyday occurrence. Cathedral was not liable.
Cole v Davis Gilbert, The RBL
Owners of a village Green allowed the green to be used by Royal British Legion to hold a village fete which included maypole dancing. The maypole left a hole and was filled. Sometimes later the filling was removed although it was not known by whom. The claimant stepped into the hole and broke her leg. Proceedings were brought against the green owners and Royal British Legion. They were not liable because the landowner knew that a maypole had been removed but can reasonably assume the hole had been sealed.
Glasgow Corp v Taylor
Father of 7 y/o boy sued Glasgow Corp for damage following death of his son caused by eating berries from a poisonous bush that was growing in Botanic Gardens in Glasgow. The gardens were open to the public and managed by D. Plant was enclosed by a wooden fence which was open to the public and easily accessible to children. Glasgow Corp were liable. Berries alluring to children.
Phipps v Rochester Corp
2 children passed across grassland which was part of a building site located on an estate that was being developed by Ds. The developers had dug a deep trench for sewage purposes and the boy aged 5 fell in and broke his leg. The court considered the trench dangerous however Devlin J stated “the responsibility for the safety of little children must rest primarily on parents.”
Jolley v Sutton LBC
D negligently left a broken boat on a beach they owned where they had placed a warning sign for the boat to not be touched. Two teenage boys attempted to alter its position over several visits. The boat then fell on one of the boys causing severe injuries including paraplegia. The claimant alleged D had breached statutory duties under 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act which ruled in claimants favour however Court of Appeal overturned this decision finding that although it was foreseeable that young children may be injured it wasn’t foreseeable that boys of the claimant’s age would attempt a full restoration.
Ogwo v Taylor
D attempted to burn off paint from the fascia boards beneath the eaves of his house with a blow lamp and in doing so he set fire to the premises. The fire brigade were called and the claimant, a fireman, and colleague entered the house wearing breathing apparatus and protective clothing. Claimant suffered serious burn injuries. Duty of care owed to fireman by the occupier.
What is volenti?
someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict.
