OL Lawful visitors

Question 1

1. Is D an occupier?

Answer 1

Wheat v Lacon: Can be multiple
Harris: No need to be in physical possession
Bailey v Armes: Can be none

Question 2

2.Did it happen on ‘premises’

Answer 2

s.1(3): Fixed or moveable structure, include aircraft or vessels
Wheeler: Can be ladder

Question 3

3. Is claimant a lawful visitor

Answer 3

Invitee/licensee (s.1(2) OLA 1957)
Statutory rights (s.2(5) OLA 1957)
Contractual permission (s.5(2) OLA 1957)
Common law implied license (lowery v walker)

Question 4

4.Visitor is a lawful visitor - therefore the defendant (occupier) owes them the common duty of care

Answer 4

OLA 1957 s.2: The common duty of care is to do all that is reasonable in the circumstances to keep the visitor reasonably safe in the circumstances for the reason they are on the premises
Laverton v Kiapasha: Not a requirement to be completely safe, just reasonably safe (can expect visitor to take some responsibility of their own safety)

Question 5

5a. Does visitor belong to one of the following groups: Children

Answer 5

s.2(3)(a) OLA 1957
Glasgow v taylor
jolley v sutton
Phipps v rochester

Question 6

s.2(3)(a) OLA 1957

Answer 6

Defendants should expect children to be less careful than adults, especially with allurements

Question 7

Glasgow v Taylor

Answer 7

Defendant should provide additional protection against things which may be an allurement for children

Question 8

Jolley v sutton

Answer 8

Defendant must protect against actions of children that are reasonably foreseeable

Question 9

Phipps v rochester

Answer 9

However Dd can expect a young child to be supervised

Question 10

5b. Does visitor belong to one of the following groups: Tradespeople

Answer 10

s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957: D can expect tradespeople to be aware of risks involved in their work
Roles v nathan: chimney sweeps, demonstrates this

Question 11

Can D avoid liability for the actions of an independent contractor

Answer 11

s.2(4) OLA 1957: occupier is not liable for work of independent contractor as long as:
Reasonable to give work to independent contractor (Haseldine)
Contractor is competent and qualified (e.g. references) (bottomley v todmorden)
Occupier checked work of contractor and risk was not obvious (woodward v hastings)

Question 12

Defences

Answer 12

Contributory negligence (law reform(contributory negligence) act)
Consent (smith v baker)
Warning signs used (s.2(4) OLA 1957) - only effective if keeps visitors reasonably safe
Exclusion clauses: s.65 Consumer rights act 2015- a trade cannot restrict liability for personal injury or death