OLA 1957 overall Test

Question 1

What parts of the normal rules of negligence apply when writing an OLA 1957 essay?

Answer 1

DoC
Breach
Causation
Remoteness

Question 2

What type of visitor is the OLA 1957 for?

Answer 2

Lawful visitors

Question 3

What is a better phrase for DoC in an OLA 1957 essay?

Answer 3

Common duty of care

Question 4

What does s.2 (1) of the act state?

Answer 4

An occupier owes DoC to all lawful visitors

Question 5

In what section is the duty of care set out?

Answer 5

s.2 (2)

Question 6

In summary what does s.2 (2) state?

Answer 6

“…such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises…”

Question 7

The term occupier is not define by the act but what could an occupier include?

Answer 7

Owner
Tenant
Contractors on a building site
Organisers of a fairground stall

Question 8

What does case law indicate occupier means?

Answer 8

It is any person who controls the premises or the relevant part of it. (Has a degree of control over the land)

Question 9

What happens if there is more than one occupier?

Answer 9

Liability occurs for those who have a degree of control over the premises or the relevant part of it

Question 10

What case determined what happens when there is more than one occupier?

Answer 10

Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Question 11

What are premises?

Answer 11

Any land, buildings ore moveable structures (scaffolding) or vehicles-s.1 (3)(a)

Question 12

To avoid breach what standard must the occupier reach?

Answer 12

The standard of a reasonable occupier.

Question 13

What case demonstrates the standard for avoiding breach?

Answer 13

Tedstone v Bourne Leisure LTD (2008)

Question 14

What does s.2 (1) state about warnings?

Answer 14

An occupier can waive DoC by putting up signs saying he will not accept legal responsibility for accidents etc

Question 15

Give the case name where the D put up warnings but was still held liable as his warning was not visible.

Answer 15

Woolins v British Celanese (1996)

Question 16

[EXTRA]What modifications have been made under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for liability being waived using warnings in the case of business premises?

Answer 16

1. Liability CANNOT be waived for death or personal injury when it results from negligence
2. Liability CANNOT be waived for other types of loss when it is not reasonable to do so
3. Liability CAN be waived by business owner where visitors are admitted for recreational or educational purposes which are not a part of the business, e.g. schools visiting a working farm.

Question 17

In the breach section of your essay what 4 factors should be considered in accordance to the scenario?

Answer 17

Children
Independent contractors who get injured whilst working on your property
Bad work by independent contractors
Warnings

Question 18

What section of the act says that an occupier must be prepared for children who are less careful than adults?
What case is used to demonstrate this?

Answer 18

s.2 (3)(a)
Moloney v Lambeth London Borough Council (1966)

Question 19

Regarding children, what are occupiers allowed to assume?
And what case do we use to demonstrate this?

Answer 19

Occupiers are allowed to assume parents will take appropriate care of children
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Question 20

What section of the act talks about where independent contractors get injured whilst working on your property?

Answer 20

s.2 (3)(b)

Question 21

What does s.2 (3)(b) say about independent contractors who get injured whilst working on your property?

Answer 21

An occupier may expect that a specialist will protect himself against the risks of his own specialism

Question 22

Give an example of what s.2(3)(b) says.

Answer 22

For example you will not be liable if an electrician electrocuted themselves when checking old faulty wiring in your house as an electrician should have known to protect themselves.

Question 23

What section if the act talks about where independent contractors have done negligent work?

Answer 23

s.2 (4)

Question 24

What does s.2(4) state?

Answer 24

Occupier is not liable for negligent work done by a contractor (someone carrying out a service in exchange for a fee)

Question 25

Give an example of what s.2(4) means.

Answer 25

If you get a qualified electrician in to fix the wiring and a guest comes into your house and gets an electric shock. Because of the negligent work done by the contractor you will not be liable.

Question 26

What exception is there to where independent contractors have done negligent work you will not be liable?
What case show shows this?

Answer 26

If you were in a position to check the quality of the work. (Consider the reasonable person)
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1944)

Question 27

In an essay for OLA 1957, what rules apply for causation and remoteness?

Answer 27

Normal for negligence essays

Question 28

What section of the act states that normal rules apply for contributory negligence as a defence and state the validity of the defence?

Answer 28

s.2(3)

Question 29

What section of the act states the validity of the defence of consent and that normal rules of consent apply?
Give a case example.

Answer 29

s.2(5)
Geary v JD Weatherspoon (2011)

Question 30

Facts of Wheat v Lacon (1966).

Answer 30

There were two Ds – the manager of a pub (who lived above it) and the owner.
Guest in the overnight accommodation died on stairs; court said both Ds could be occupiers (neither guilty in the end as no negligence).

Question 31

Facts of Tedstone v Bourne Leisure LTD (2008).

Answer 31

C slipped on water at a spa.
D not liable as spillage there was not unusual and no reasonable occupier could have prevented the accident.

Question 32

Facts of Woollins v British Celanese (1996).

Answer 32

D was liable as, though he had put up warnings that a roof was dangerous, it was behind a door so not visible.

Question 33

Facts of Moloney v Lambeth London Borough Council (1966).

Answer 33

Council liable for large gaps in bannisters which a child fell through.

Question 34

Facts of Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955).

Answer 34

5yr old fell in trench but not liable as reasonable parents would have ensured supervision

Question 35

Facts of Woodward V Mayor of Hastings (1944).

Answer 35

Contractor swept up snow but left steps in a slippery condition and C fell over.
D liable as the reasonable person ought to be able to check this.

Question 36

Facts of Geary v JD Weatherspoon (2011).

Answer 36

C tried to slide down pub bannisters.
She had consented to risk so no liability.