OL Lawful visitors eval Flashcards
P: Supports the principles of tort
Dev: Requires D occupiers to protect those who they can expect to be on their land
OLA 1957 uses objective test so D is expected to do what is reasonable, makes sure visitor kept reasonably safe
This ensures the focus is on the safety of the claimant which is principle of tort law, and also sounds out a message to occupiers to ensure safety of visitors
P: Claims by lawful visitors favoured over trespassers
Dev: This makes the law fairer, as rules make it harder for a trespasser to make a claim than a lawful visitor, which seems fair in tort law
Also good for policy reasons as it stops opening of flood gates to too many claims
For example under OLA 1957, lawful is property and personal, whereas 1984 trespassers is personal only
Also Trespassers subjective, yet lawful objective, making trespassers claims harder
This provides a good balance as there is still a way to claim for trespassers, but much harder to do
P: D is still not liable for obvious risks
Dev: The occupier only has to do what is reasonable to keep lawful visitors safe, therefore fairer on defendants as it ensures they only pay when they have fallen below this standard
Seen in laverton v kiapasha - lawful visitors expected to keep themselves safe, no requirement for D to keep premises completely safe
Also warning signs can be used to avoid liability, but no need to warn against obvious risks, staples
Therefore the rules help to protect defendants and provide fairness
P: additional protection provided for children
Dev: it is justifiable to require occupiers to take additional care then they know lawful visitors may include children who may be less careful
Seen in rules for allurements in which D must take extra care - glasgow v taylor
Provides excellent levels of protection for vulnerable
However can be unfair for defendants as children can be unpredictable and ‘bigger’ children should be aware of risks, and they should be supervised by parents (phipps v rochester)
