OLA 1984

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

a trespasser is a person who has no permission to be on the occupiers premises or a visitor who has gone beyond their permission to be on the premises

Question 2

Practise statement change

Answer 2

Originally there was no duty of care for trespassers, HOL used practise statement to introduce a common humanity owed by occupiers (BRB v Herrington)

Question 3

duty

Answer 3

S1(1)(a) trespassers must not be injured by the state of premises or by things done/omitted to be done on them.
S1(3) occupiers will only owe a duty of care to trespassers if
1. he is aware of the danger
2. he knows that the trespasser may come into the vicinity of the danger
3. he can offer some protection against the risk

Question 4

Test

Answer 4

S1(4) the standard of care is judged subjectively to ensure trespasser is reasonably safe. Greater risk means a greater precaution must be taken

Question 5

No liability if

Answer 5

Trespasser is injured on an obvious danger (Ratcliffe v Mcconell)
The time of day and year is relevant to assume liability (Donoghue v Folkstone)
No reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser (Higgs v Foster)
Not aware of the danger (Rhind v Astbury Waterpark)
Same rules apply to child trespassers (Keown v Coventry NHS)

Question 6

Defences

Answer 6

Contributory negligence - A partial defence by Law Reform Act 1945 (Sayers v Harlow) e.g attempting dangerous escape
S1 (6) Volenti - ignoring a sign of warning
S1 (5) Warning notices - Full defence and only be effective if it keeps trespasser reasonably safe

Question 7

Remedies

Answer 7

S1 (6) P.I only
Compensatory damages - put C in the same position before the tort never happened.
Special damages - pecuniary as they can be calculated. May include pre-trial loss of earnings expenses.
General damages -