OLA 1984 Flashcards
1
Q
Common law approach
A
Trespassers are owed a duty of basic humanity: Herrington v BRB - child badly burnt after trespassing.
2
Q
Scope
A
- Persons covered: those not visitors under OLA 1957 (users of private rights, trespassers, not highway users)
- Death and personal injury covered (s1(8); s1(9))
- Occupancy duties only s1(1)(a): Revill v Newbery (no OLA claim where D shot the trespassers)
3
Q
Duty of care
A
“Care as is reasonable” s1(4):
- D is aware/reasonable grounds to be aware of the danger
- D is aware/reasonable grounds to be aware that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger/likely to come into it s1(3)(b).
- Risk for which it is reasonable to expect D to offer some protection.
4
Q
Duty of care - cases
A
- Swain v Puri - fall through factory building. s1(3)(b) requires actual grounds/awareness - not “if D had been vigilant, he would have known”.
- White v St Albans - no liability for fall in trench - fencing meant that precautions had been taken.
- Donoghue v Folkstone - midnight swim: there was no reason to expect D at night.
5
Q
Breach and standard of care
A
- Care “as is reasonable” (s1(4))
- No liability for obvious risks:
Keown v Coventry - child climbing a fire escape.
Ratcliff v McConnell - midnight swim in college pool (as an adult, should have appreciated the risk).
6
Q
Defences
A
Contributory negligence; volenti non fit iniuria (s1(6))
7
Q
Exclusion of liability
A
The Act is silent.
No - the rationale of the conditional license does not apply.
Yes - otherwise, the lawful visitor is less well protected. Note that this would only be a common law exclusion as the UCTA 1977 and the CRA 2015 are specific to OLA 1957.
