OL Comparison of Two Acts

Question 1

Difference: what can be claimed for

Answer 1

Lawful: OLA 1957 claim can be property or personal injury
Trespassers: s1(1) OLA 1984 personal injury only
Justified as trespassers deserve less protection
Also acts as deterrent to discourage trespassers from entering unlawfully and from trying to make a claim if they are injured whilst doing so which keeps it out the court
tomlinson v congleton - lord hoffman, trespassers “should not ordinarily be able to force duties upon unwilling hosts”

Question 2

Difference: tests used by the courts

Answer 2

Lawful visitors - objective test - laverton v kiapasha, keep visitors reasonably safe not completely safe
Trespassers - s.1 OLA 1984 - subjective test, D must be aware of risk of injury and risk of trespass
Makes it more difficult for trespasser claim as they have to prove D personally knew both
However justified based on fairness for the defendant

Question 3

Similarity: Law does all for claims for injuries caused on anothers land

Answer 3

Dev: Provides justice for claimants, supporting ideas of tort
Even for trespassers, there is a common duty of humanity where D is aware that something dangerous exists on their land that there is a chance of unlawfu, visitors as a result - BRB v Herrington
However d is not expected to protect against risks they are unaware of for trespassers who they are not expecting to be there - Rhind v Astbury
Both acts require that the specific danger is identified (yet only 1984 requires D to be aware of risk)
Ensures a good balance of fairness for defendants and claimants

Question 4

Difference: Different tests are in line with public opinion

Answer 4

Dev: As mentioned above it is harder for a trespasser to make a claim than a lawful visitor
Supported by public opinion which shows fairness
Too many claims for trespassers would clog up courts
Revill v Newbury - homeowner injured burglar and had to pay compensation, but public donated to fund to help D to pay compensation

Question 5

Similarity: both acts prevent claims for obvious risks

Answer 5

Dev: Makes sure it is fair for D who does not need to pay for an obvious risk
Seen mainly in trespass case - ratcliff v mcconnell - diving into a pool is an obvious risk that an adult should be aware of, no liability
Also lawful visitors - Edward v sutton - no liability for a man who fell off a bridge in a public park as “not every accident, has to be the fault of another”
Ensures only legitimate and justified claims are successful