OLA 1957 Flashcards
What is an occupier?
Someone with ownership or control over the premises, it can be more than one person.
Who is a lawful visitor?
Someone with express or implied permission to be within the premises.
Who is a trespasser?
Someone without express or implied permission to be within the premises, or someone who goes beyond their permission.
What would amount to premises?
Any fixed or moveable structure
s1 (2)
The occupier owes a “common duty of care” to all his visitors
s2 (2)
The occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their visitor(s).
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
The occupier does not have to ensure the visitor’s absolute safety but instead ensures they are reasonably safe.
Wheat v Lacon - dimly lit staircase, fractured skull, death
An occupier must have some form of control over the premises. There can be more than one occupier.
s2 (3)a
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
Glasgow v Taylor
If a danger creates an allurement, extra care needs to be taken in order to make sure children do not interact with it
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
An occupier is entitled to assume a child will be under the supervision of a prudent adult
Moloney v Lambeth Borough Council
If it is foreseeable that a child will be present within an area, that area must be reasonably safe for a child to use.
occupier case
Laverton V Kiapasha Takeaway
s2 (3)b
An occupier is entitled to assume a specialist visitor will be aware of the dangers and will protect themself against it
Roles v Nathan
If a specialist is warned of any further dangers, they are far less likely to succeed in a claim if they choose not to follow the warning.
s2 (4)a
Where an occupier has warned a visitor of danger by way of a warning sign, which is clear and visible in all circumstances of the case, the occupier is absolved of all liability
s2 (4)b
The occupier can “pass the blame” towards an independent contractor if:
- In all circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor - Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
- Had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought to in order to satisfy himself that the contractor is competent - Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
- Had taken steps to check if the work had been properly done - Haseldine v Daw
Defences:
- Contributory Negligence - Restricting liability
- Volenti - Modifying Liability
- Exclusion Clauses - Excluding liability
sufficient warning but must be enough to protect
Rae V Mars
Specialist visitor s2(3)b
Roles V Nathan
Warning Sign s2(4)a cases
Haseldine V Daw and Son
Bottomley V todmorden CC
Woodward V Mayor of Hastings
Remedies:
A successful claimant can claim damages for death and personal injury. Under s.1(3) OLA 1957 he can also claim for damages to property (including damage to the property of someone other than himself) and any consequential economic loss resulting from damage to property such as the costs of recovery.
