OLA 1984 Flashcards
what is a trespasser
person who has no permission or authority to be on premises
how can a lawful visitor become a trespasser
if they exceed the permission granted to them
what can they not claim for and section
s.1(8) damage to property
when will a duty arise
when danger is due to premises
case for danger due to state of premises
Sidorn v Patel
Sidorn v Patel facts
danger arose due to C dancing on garage rather condition of premises
act that states duty is not automatic
s.1(3)
what does s.1(3) provide
on occupier will only owe a duty if they meet 3 sections
s.1(3) a
they are aware of danger or reasonable grounds to believe it exists
s.1(3) b
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger of may come into the vicinity
s.1(3) c
reasonable circumstances expected to offer protection
are a and b subjective or objective
subjective, relates to the knowledge of D
case for s.1(3) a
Rhind v Astubury
Rhind v Astubury facts
did not know of fibreglass container in their lake, so not duty owed
case for s.1(3) b
Higgs v foster
Higgs v foster facts
no reason to suspect trespasser would come within vicinity of danger
what may be relevant for whether DOC is owed
time of day and year
case for relevance of time of day and year
Donoghue v Folkstone properties
Donoghue v Folkstone properties facts
no duty as occupier would not expect a trespasser to jump into harbour in the middle of the night in winter
is s.(1)(3)c subjective or objective
both
whether danger is one occupier may be reasonably expected to offer some protection from
includes taking into costs
case for s.(1)(3)c
tomlinson v congleton
tomlinson v congleton facts
injured diving into lake ignoring warning sign
not reasonable to offer protection against natural feature of a lake
s.1(4)
standard of care owed
what does s.1(4) state
occupiers owe trespassers a DOC in reasonable circumstances so they do not suffer injury on premises by reason of danger
is the standard of care objective or subjective
objective. factors taken into account include nature of premises, degree of danger, practicality of taking precautions
case for practicality of taking precautions- not needing to spend lots of money
Tomlinson v congleton
what do the occupiers owe not duty to guard against
obvious dangers
obvious dangers case
Ratcliff v McConnell
Ratcliff v McConnell facts
climbed over locked gate and dived into pool
not required to guard against obvious dangers
obvious dangers with kids case
Keown v coventry NHS trust
Keown v coventry NHS trust facts
young boy climbed fire escape and fell
no DOC as accident happened thru his own dangerous behaviour
3 defences available
warning notices, contrib neg, consent
warning notes statute
s.1(5) has to make danger clear, depends on age and understanding
case for warning notices
Westwood v post office
