OLA 57 Flashcards
Permission (2)
-express
-implied
Wheat V E Leacon
Defines what an occupier is, someone who has some level of control over the premises
S1 (3) what are premises?
“Land, buildings, any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft”
S2 (2) common duty of care
“The visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited”
Staples V West Dorset DC
Warning not necessary as danger clearly visible, chose to take risk
S2(3)(a) childeren (2)
-“An occupier must be prepared for childeren to be less careful than adults”
-“premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age”
Glasgow Corporation V Taylor
Allurement tempting for a child, no warnings/ fencing, liable
Phipps V Rochester Corporation
Childeren not expected to be in area, were not expected to make area safe for childeren, not liable
Perry V Butlins
Childeren expected in area, area not safe, liable
Jolley V LB of Sutton
Allurement was tempting for child, however childeren not supposed to be in the area, not foreseeable so not liable
S2(3)(b) persons exercising a calling
“Person exercising a calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it”
Roles V Nathan
Persons exercising a calling should be aware of risks and guard against them, in this case did not so occupiers not liable
Ogwo V Taylor
Firefighter injured, was aware of danger but could not prepare against it, therefore occupiers were liable
S2(4)(b) independant contractors (2)
Occupier not liable for independant contractors if
-took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent
-if possible should check the work has been carried out properly
Haseldine V Daw
Occupier could not check work, work resulted in death of claimant, not liable as work too complicated to check and contractor appeared competent
