OLA Flashcards
What does ola 57 look at
The state of the premises for those who have permission to enter
2 types of permission
Expressed permission- invited onto the premises
Implied permission- You would expect to be able to enter
What case determined who the occupier was
Wheat v E Lacon- a guest at a pub fell down dangerous staircase and died. The manager and the owner were liable as they both has some control over the premises
What sections states what a premises is
S1.3- and land building or movable structure, including and vessel vehicle and aircraft.
What is the common duty of care with cases
S2.2- “the visitor will be reasonable safe using the premises for the purpose which he is invited”
Staples v west Dorset DC- slippery algae on rocks that was visible. Man slipped. Not need for warning as it was clearly visible
What does ola 57 state about children
2.3a- “an occupier must be prepare for children to be less careful than adults” “premise must be reasonably safe for a child of that age”
Glasgow corperation v taylor- 7 year old are berries frommbush and died. Deemed an allurement so was liable
Phipps v Rochester corporation- 5 year old boy fell down a trench and broke his leg. Not liable as there was no sensible parent around
Perry v butlins- 3 year old cut on a sharp wall- liable
Kelley v LB of sutton- 14 year old found an abandoned boat. Collapsed and became paralysed. Not foreseeable so not liable
quote for persons exercising a calling
S2.3b: Occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of their calling “will appreciate and gaurd against any special risks ordinarily incident to it”
. Roles v nathan- 2 chimney sweeps got carbon monoxide poisoning and died. Should’ve knows to take precautions but didnt so not liable.
. Ogwo v taylor- defendant set fire to house. The firefighter was injured putting out the fire. No amount of care could protect him. Defendant couldn’t rely on s2 3b so claim succeeded
Independent contractors
S2.4b occupier will not be held liable for the work of independent contractors if they are competent and if possible they should check the work and that its been carried out properly.
. Haseldine v daw- appears to be competent and maintained a lift. Couldnt check the work as not possible. The lift plunged and killed the claimant. Not liable
. Woodward v mayor of hastings- child at school slipped on a snow step. Had not checked the step. Held liable as it was a danger.
Defences
Contributory negligence
Volenti
Warnings
Exclusion clause- can not exclude death or personal injury
What is ola 84
Ola 84 can only sue for personal injury not property after entering without permissions.
Tomlinson’s v congleton- man went into park, implied permission. Jumped into river, trespasser. Could only be dealt with under old 84 as thre was no premission
Point one that must be met for claim to be successful
“The occupier must be aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists”
Point two that must be met to claim
“They know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the other person is in the vicinity of the danger concerned, or that they might come into the vicinity of it”
. Swain v natui ram puri- 9 year old boy injured after climbed on the roof and fell. Didnt have grounds to believe that the child may enter vicinity so not liable
. Scott v ABP- 2 separate occasions 4 years apart. First time he wasnt liable as he didnt know however second time he was liable as he was aware of the danger but didnt change it.
Point 3 that must be met to claim
“The risk is one which in all circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection”
. Platt v liverpool sc- boys killed playing in derelict building. Council put up 8 foot fence and planned to demolish it. Council couldnt be held liable as they had done all they reasonably could.
