OLA ‘57

Question 1

what does OLA 1957 relate to

Answer 1

Lawful visitors for injury/damage from the premises

Question 2

Who is the Occupier

Answer 2

no legal def. but…
anybody in possession/control of land (Wheat V Lacon)
can be more than 1 (Harris V Birkenhead Corp)
no one in control=no O (Bailey V Armes)

Question 3

what section is premises under?

Answer 3

s.1(3)

Question 4

what is the definition of premises?

Answer 4

‘A person having control over any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel vehicle or aircraft’

Question 5

what is the case of Wheeler V Copas for ?

Answer 5

premises: houses, buildings, vehicles, lifts & ladders

Question 6

what are the 4 types of lawful visitor and what section?

Answer 6

s.1(2)
Invitees
Licensees
Contractual Right
Statutory Right of Entry

Question 7

what does it say under s.2(2) OLA

Answer 7

Occupier owes a common duty of care to all lawful visitors

Question 8

what is the common DoC to LV & section?

Answer 8

s.2(2) a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’

Question 9

what does the DoC mean ?

Answer 9

owner should take reasonable steps to protect LV as long as they’re allowed to be there

Question 10

Dean & Chapter of Rochester Cathedral V Debell relates to what

Answer 10

Common DoC- O must come to standard of reasonable man and risks only foreseeable if there is ‘a real source of danger’

Question 11

what can an O not prevent?

Answer 11

‘Slips Trips and Falls’

Question 12

what additional issues must we be aware of ?

Answer 12

duty to Child visitors
duty to Tradespeople (common calling)
duty to Independent Contractors

Question 13

what is the duty to child visitors?

Answer 13

s.2(3) ‘An O must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’

Question 14

What are the cases for child visitor ?

Answer 14

Taylor V Glasgow Corp.
Phipps V Rochester Corp.
Jolley V Sutton- if damage unforseeable=not liable

Question 15

What is the duty to Tradespeople?

Answer 15

s.2(3)(b) for any experts on property to do work- ‘O may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate the guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the O leaves him free’

Question 16

what does mooney v lambeth bc relate to?

Answer 16

accepting a child is more at risk and the standard of care may be higher/lower based on the age of the child

Question 17

if the O allows a child to enter what must the premises be?

Answer 17

reasonably safe for a child that age (Perry V Butlins Holiday World)

Question 18

What is the law on allurement to a child visitor?

Answer 18

allurement= anything to tempt, entice or attract to the danger (Taylor V Glasgow)
however the mere existence is not sufficient enough (Liddle V Yorkshire CC)

Question 19

What does Phipps V Rochester discuss?

Answer 19

The O may be entitled to assume parents should be supervising depending on the age of the child

Question 20

What is the final part of law on child visitors?

Answer 20

the damage/injury must be foreseeable (not specific to type of harm) Jolley V Sutton LBC)

Question 21

what does the DoC to tradesman mean ?

Answer 21

O owes DoC but not for things the tradesperson should know as part of their job- Roles V Nathan

Question 22

what is the section for and law on independant contractors ?

Answer 22

s.2(4)(b)
1. is it reasonable for O to give IC the work -Haseldine V Daw& Son
2.is contractor competent- Bottomley V Todmoreton Cricket Club
3. has O checked work is done properly- Woodward V Mayor of Hastings

Question 23

What are the 4 defences for OLA ‘57?

Answer 23

1. Contributory Negligence
2. Volenti non injuria
3. Warning Signs
4. Exclusion Clauses

Question 24

Where does the defence of Contrib Negl. come from and what does it mean?

Answer 24

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945- liability may be reduced if C contributed to own injuries.
However if LV fails to take reasonable care for own safety, damages may be reduced as percentage on how liable they are (Sayers V Harlow Urban DC)