OLA 1984 overall Test

Question 1

What case does the history of the OLA 1984 come from?

Answer 1

British Railway Board v Herrington (1972)

Question 2

What type of visitor does the OLA 1984 talk about?

Answer 2

Unlawful visitor/trespasser

Question 3

Why did Parliament pass the OLA 1984?

Answer 3

The duty of ‘common humanity’/common sense from British Railway Board v Herrington (1972) was uncertain and needed clarifying.

Question 4

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

Answer 4

Occupier and premises have the same meaning as for OLA 1957

Question 5

What does s.1(1) state?

Answer 5

An duty only arises where there is a danger due to the condition on the premises. That is, rather than due to the behaviour of the trespasser.

Question 6

What case is used to demonstrate the statement under s.1(1)?

Answer 6

Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2006)

Question 7

What 3 points does s.1(3) say that there is only an duty if all these points are met by the occupier?

Answer 7

1. The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
2. Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone else is in the vicinity of the danger or may come to be
3. The danger is one against which, in all the circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.

Question 8

What does s.1(4) say?

Answer 8

The occupier owes a duty to a trespasser to take such as care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer injuries.

Question 9

What does case law suggest about s.1(4)?

Answer 9

Courts will often come down on the sides of the D (SL)

Question 10

Do normal rules apply for causation in the OLA 1984 essay?

Answer 10

Yes

Question 11

What do we have to write regarding remoteness in an OLA 1984 essay?

Answer 11

Not relevant here because it ahse already been dealt with under DoC

Question 12

As a part of remedies under the OLA 1984 what can a C claim for?

Answer 12

Death and personal injury

Question 13

By s.1(8) what can a C not claim for as a part of remedies?

Answer 13

Any loss to property

Question 14

Do normal rules apply for contributory negligence?

Answer 14

Yes

Question 15

Do normal rules apply for consent and what case?

Answer 15

Yes as confirmed in s.1(6)
Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999)

Question 16

What should we keep in mind but may not need in regards to signs in warnings in the OLA 1984?

Answer 16

It is not clear either from the Act whether occupiers can avoid liability through warning signs.
However we can keep in mind Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Question 17

Facts of British Railway Board v Herrington (1972).

Answer 17

C was a child aged 6 who badly injured when trespassing on electrified railway line which ran next to a field where children played.
The fence between the field and line had been trampled.

Question 18

Why was D held liable in British Railway Board v Herrington (1972)?

Answer 18

HoL held D liable because common sense and “common humanity” suggested that the company should have taken measures to protect the children.

Question 19

Facts of Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2006).

Answer 19

C an 11yr old playing with other children when he climbed up the underside of a metal fire escape; claim failed as it was caused by his own dangerous behaviour, not an unsafe building.

Question 20

Facts of Ratcliff v McConnell (1999).

Answer 20

C trespassed at a swimming pool at night and broke his neck.
No liability as he’d consented to the risk.

Question 21

Facts of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003).

Answer 21

C entered council park but became a trespasser when he jumped into lake despite sign forbidding swimming.
No liability as council had taken reasonable measures