OLA Flashcards
Occupiers liability
- deals with the risk posed or harm by dangerous places/buildings
- imposed liability on the occupier of the premises.
- the occupier may be liable if they have not taken reasonable care to ensure that those entering their premises are safe
the common law
the common law distinguished between two different types of visitor to premises
- the duty owed by an occupier varied according to the category of the lawful visitor
- if trespasser no duty in negligence was owed
OLA 1957
S 2(1)- all lawful visitors are owed the same common duty of care by the occupier
S1(1) - regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or mitted to be done on them
S1(2) - an occupier only owes a duty under OLA 1957 to those they have invited or have given permission to enter or use the premises
S1(3)(b)
3)- the rules so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply- to regulate
b) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any premises or structure in respect of damage to property
occupier
Who is an occupier
S 1 (2) the duty imposed by law in consequence of a person’s occupation or control of premises
- liability thus does not depend on ownership but on effective control
Wheat v Lacon & co Ltd (1966)
- L could right to enter to see state of repair
- someone died falling behind the unlit stairs and held both liable
hwld: both L had not given up occupation of premises by letting the live
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)
- B served notice under a compulsory order on the owner of a property on july but stayed till dec
- b enter property 14 days later and possess
- 3 months later a 4 year oldf ell out the window and had permanent brain damage
held: B liable once the property became vacant, the notice was B asserting their control
LAWFUL VISITOR
S1(2) - an occupier only owes a duty under OLA 1957 to those they have invited or have given permission to enter or use the premises
- if a visitor goes beyond what they have been invited or given permission to do at that point and to that extent, they will no longer be a visitor and will fall outside the 1967 act
Spearman v royal United Bath Hospitals NHS foundation Trust (2017
- S had a mental disorder cause of accident and had hospital phobia
- went hospital, climbed up stairs to roof and fell into ground where injured
held: the act of climbing over the barrier did not make S a trespasser and Ds duty under 1957 applied
Premises
S1 (3) any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
- definition covers not only permanent structures e.g buildings and driveways but also temporary ones
OWED DUTY
- duty owed is the common duty of care
s2(2) the common duty of care is a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the cases to reasonably to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there
Laverton v Kiapsha (2002)
- slipped on the floor
- floor wet from heavy rain
held: K not responsible, take actions to be reasonably safe not guarantee safety
variations of duty for different visitors
professionals
S2(3)- the circumstances relevant for the present purpose include the degree of care and of want of care which
b) an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so
- skilled visitors are expected to guard against special risks associated with their profession s2(3)(b)
Roles v Nathan (1963)- 2 chimney sweeps were killed by carb mono, ignored warnings from engineer
held: no duty of care owed
children
s(2(3)(a)- an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
Moloney v Lambeth London Borough Council (1964)
- 4 yr old of a tenant tripped
held: child would foresee children use stairs no adult
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
- boy aged 7 died after eating poisonous berries in a public park
- no fence or warning
held: G was liable, berried an allurement, children were naturally curious
- if obvious can take into account that reasonable parents will not permit children
Jolley v Sutton (2000)
- small boat was abandoned
- tried to repair and fell on him
held: boat an allurement
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
- 5 aged walking sister 7 fell into trench
held: trench not allurement and parents would not allow such young children to play unaccompanied
Simkiss v Rhondda Borough (1983)
- same reasoning was applied in this case a 7 yr old girl fell off wben sliding a steep slope
held: the parents must have known that the slope was danger, R entitled to assume that parents would have warned their children of the danger
Marsden v Bourne Leisure (2009)
2 yr drown in pond
held: not liable as pond obvious danger and did not need to give more warning, neither was to blame
Work done by independent contractors
s2(4)(b)
b) b- where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent
Gwilliam v West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust (2002)
CA held that the NHS Trust owed B a duty to check that the contractor had adequate insurance
Naylor v Payling (2004) - unless special circumstances, no general duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that an independent contractor was
insured
WARNINGS
S2(4)(a)
4) In determining whether the occupier of premises has
discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be
had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)—
(a) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he
had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe
Roles v Nathan (1963)
- only one way to get in and out of premises- over a footbridge that was rotten
- could put up sign
- 2(4) makes it clear that they would be liable nowadays
Staples v West Dorset District (1995)
slipped on algae covered wall
held: if obvious no need for warning
EXEMPTION CLAUSE
S2(1)- an occupier odd premises owes the same duty, the common duty of care to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise
DEFENCE
volenti non fit injuria
S2(5)- the common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor
- to apply the claimant must be agreeing, expressly or by implication, to waive any claim for negligence
White Lion Hotel v James (2021)
- died from falling from second floor
- sat on the window sill
held: Contributory negligence 60%
owed to non visitors
Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck (1929) -
occupiers only under an obligation not to deliberately
or recklessly cause harm
British Railways Board v
Herrington (1972) – duty ‘to
act humanely’. Improvement on Addie but still lower
than the duty to visitors in OLA 1957
OLA 1984
section 1
(1) The rules enacted by this section shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to determine—
(a) whether any duty is owed by a person as occupier of premises to persons other than his visitors in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them; and
(b) if so, what that duty is
(3) An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) above if—
(a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;
(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in
either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not); and
(c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection
(4) Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to
see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.
8) Where a person owes a duty by virtue of this section, he does not, by reason of any breach of
the duty, incur any liability in respect of any loss of or damage to property
danger to premises
OLA 1984
s1(1)(a) - danger due to the state of premises
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)
11 yr climb up fire escape
held: the risk was not from the state of the premises but from the activity which K chose to do
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
hit his head on the bottom of lake when diving shallow water
- said dangerous water no swimming
held: cbc liable but T was 2/3 Cn
- allowed them to be not liable as there was no risk but he engaged in risk
