OLA 1957 Flashcards
what is a lawful visitor
someone who has express or implied permission to enter
contractual or legal right
what can lawful visitors claim for
personal injury and property damage
what will a duty of care only cover
when danger is due to the state of the premises
case for danger due to state of premises
Geary v Weatherspoon
Geary v Weatherspoon facts
fell of a stair banister after climbing on it, her injuries were due to her own decisions not unsafe premises
section for duty of care
s.2(2)
duty owed to lawful visitors
take such care in all circumstances reasonable to keep visitor reasonably safe for purpose of their visit
how safe does the visitor need to be
only reasonably safe (objective test)
case for keeping visitors only reasonably safe
Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway
Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway facts
rainy day and customer slipped
owners fitted special slip resistant tiles and mopped
they had take reasonable care to ensure customers were safe
no duty to keep them completely safe
what are visitors expected to do
take reasonable care for their own safety
case for visitors taking reasonable care for their own safety
Rochester cathedral v debell
Rochester cathedral v debell
tripped due to minor defect in pavement
tripping are everyday occurrences, accidents happen
occupier does not need to guarantee their safety
state of premises must pose a real source of danger
child visitors duty section
s.2(3)(a)
what duty does occupiers owe to children
occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
why is a higher standard owed to children
they are vulnerable and less likely to appreciate risks, could be attracted to danger
case for children visitors
Jolley v Sutton
Jolley v Sutton facts
kids found abandon old boat
tried to repair it, fell on him, paralysed
breached duty by failing to move boat as it is smh the would be attractive to kids
some injury reasonably foreseeable if kids played on it
in relation to children visitors what is an occupier entitled to assume
very young children will be accompanied by someone looking after them reducing standard of care
case for young children
Phipps v Rochester corp
Phipps v Rochester corp facts
young girl fell down trench
not liable bc child was too young to play
section for duty of care owed to professional visitors
s.2(3)(b)
duty owed to professional visitors
occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his trade will appreciate and guard against any special risks they ought to know through their work
standard owed to professionals
lower SOC in respect to special risks associated w their job
case for professionals
Roles v Nathan
Roles v Nathan facts
chimney sweeps died from inhaling poisonous fumes
special risk they should have been familiar with and be guarded against
5 defences available
independent contractors
warning notices
exclusion clauses
contrib negligence
consent
section for independent contractors
s.2(4)(b)
what 3 conditions need to be met for IC
- reasonable to hire contractor
- reasonable precautions taken to ensure contractor was competent
- reasonable checks taken to inspect work
case for reasonable to hire contractor
Haseldine v Daw
Haseldine v Daw facts
lift negligently repaired by IC
occupier not liable as they fulfilled their duty by appointing competent firm
was reasonable to entrust specialist
case for reasonable precautions
Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club
Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club
firework display injured guest
hired a stunt team
failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors
case for reasonable checks
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings facts
child injured on icy school steps
occupiers liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check work that had been properly done, danger should have been obvious
section for warning notices
s.2(4)(a)
how are warning notices a defence
occupiers liability discharged if they give effective warning of danger, must be sufficient
case for warning notices
Rae v Marrs
Rae v Marrs facts
warning sign not sufficient as it could not be seen
should have done more in the circumstances
case for no need for a warning sign
Staples v West Dorset
Staples v West Dorset facts
danger off slipping on algae was obvious, no need for warning sign
exclusion clause defence
restricts or prevents duty arising in first place
contrib negligence defence
degree of care reasonable visitor can be expected to take and may reduce compensation if they are partially responsible
consent
complete defence, willingly accepted risk of negligence
