OLA 1984 Flashcards
Occupiers?
Usually the owner.
Wheat v E Lacom - Held that a manager of a pub could be the occupier even though he did not own the premises.
Premises?
S1(3) - Occupiers liability defines a premises as a fixed or movable structure including a vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
Wheeler v Copas - Premises includes land, building and any fixed or movable structure and is broadly defined.
Definition of Trespasser?
Under the occupiers liability act 1984 a trespasser is not defined. The Common law definition is “someone who goes on the land without any sort of permission and whose presence is unknown to the occupier or if known is objected to”.
Addie v Dumbreck - A lawful visitor can become a trespasser when they go beyond their permission.
S1(1) 1984 Act?
People are owed a duty for “injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises”.
The occupier will owe a duty of care if: What section sets this?
S1(3) of the 1984 Act.
The occupier will owe a duty of care if: The occupier is aware of the danger?
Rhind v Astbury Water Park - The occupier will not be liable if he was not aware of the danger.
The occupier will owe a duty of care if: The Occupier reasonably believes that others in the area would be in danger?
Higgs v Foster - The occupier will not be liable if he had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser.
The occupier will owe a duty of care if: The risk is one which could be protected against?
Tomlinson v Congleton - The occupier does not have to spend lots of money in making the premises safe from obvious dangers.
What does S1(4) of the 1984 Act set out?
Take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger.
The standard of care is objective, the greater degree of risk then the greater protection needed. The age of the trespasser is an example of this.
Adult Trespassers: Ratcliff v McConnell?
The occupier will not be liable if the visitor injured in obvious danger.
Ratcliff v McConnell - Depth of a swimming pool is an obvious danger.
Adult Trespassers: Donoghue v Folkstone?
Trespassers should not engage in foolhardy pursuits or ones which their training should make them aware of.
Child Trespassers?
The same rules apply to Child trespassers as those that apply to adults.
Baldaccino v West Withering - Occupier not liable to warn against obvious dangers.
However, S1(4) does set out that age should be taken into account of.
