ola 57 Flashcards
What is the primary focus of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?
The Act is concerned with lawful visitors
The Act establishes the duty of care owed to lawful visitors by occupiers.
What duty do occupiers owe to lawful visitors under the OLA 1957?
A duty to keep lawful visitors reasonably safe
This duty encompasses ensuring that the premises are safe for lawful visitors.
How is an ‘occupier’ defined under the OLA 1957?
s1(2) A person treated as such under common law
This was established in the case of Wheat v Lacon, emphasizing control over the property.
According to the OLA 1957, what constitutes ‘premises’?
s1(3)(a)Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
This broad definition covers various types of property.
Who qualifies as a ‘lawful visitor’ under the OLA 1957?
s1(2)Someone treated as an invitee or licensee at common law
This includes individuals with express or implied permission to enter.
What is an ‘invitee’?
A person invited to enter premises with express permission
Invitees have a higher duty of care owed to them by the occupier.
What is a ‘licensee’?
Persons with express/implied permission to be there for a particular time/purpose
Examples include attendees at a cinema or restaurant.
What is the definition of a lawful visitor under statute?
Individuals with a right of entry under statute, such as police with a warrant
This category provides specific legal authority to enter premises.
What does ‘contractual’ permission entail for lawful visitors?
Permission to be on premises granted through a contract, like an entry ticket
This applies to events or activities requiring purchase of entry.
What is the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors by occupiers according to s2(2)?
To keep visitors ‘reasonably safe’
This is illustrated in the case of Laverton v Kiapasha, which emphasizes that there is no duty to keep visitors ‘completely safe’.
How must occupiers treat children in terms of care according to s2(3)(a)?
Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
This principle is supported by the case of Moloney v Lambeth LBC.
What is the doctrine of allurement in the context of occupiers’ liability?
Occupiers should expect children to be attracted to potential dangers
This is highlighted in the case of Jolley v Sutton.
According to Phipps v Rochester, what expectation do occupiers have regarding the supervision of children?
Children should be properly supervised by adults.
What does s2(3)(b) state regarding specialist visitors?
Occupiers can expect specialist visitors to be aware of and protect themselves against risks in their own specialism
This is established in the case of Roles v Nathan.
What is the significance of the case Haseldine v Daw in the context of independent contractors?
It discusses the reasonable expectation of using an outside contractor.
Under what condition can the duty of care be discharged according to Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd?
If the defendant acted as the reasonable man in the same circumstances to keep the visitor safe.
What does s2(4) allow defendants to do to discharge their duty?
Provide reasonable warnings
This is illustrated in Woollins v British Celanese.
What are the three main defenses available under s2(4)(b) regarding independent contractors?
- Reasonable to bring in an outside contractor
- Reasonable steps to ensure contractor’s competence
- Reasonable steps to check work was properly done
Referenced in cases such as Haseldine v Daw, Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club, and Woodward v Mayor of Hastings.
What constitutes contributory negligence under s2(3)?
C’s own behavior fell below the standard of a reasonable person and contributed to C’s loss
This principle is established by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
In Brannon v Airtours, what is the key consideration regarding contributory negligence?
Is C partly to blame for the accident?
What does Froom v Butcher illustrate regarding contributory negligence?
C did not cause the accident but made their injuries worse.
What does s2(5) state about consent in the context of occupiers’ liability?
C knows there is a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to that risk
This is demonstrated in Geary v JD Weatherspoon PLC and Morris v Murray.
consent not freely given- (smith v baker)
c felt moral obligation- (haynes v harwood)
s(2)1 Excluding liability
clear and visible signs ( (Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd)
- Terms under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (if applicable)
s2(1) liability cannot be excluded for death or personal injury of a visitor caused by D’s negligence; and
s2(2) liability for other types of loss caused by negligence can only be excluded if it is reasonable for the occupier to do so.
s1(3)(b) the occupier of business premises is able to exclude liability for visitors admitted for a recreational or educational purpose which is outside the occupier’s business.
Remedies
A successful C can claim for death and personal injury
- s1(3) OLA 1957 also claim for damage to property & consequential
economic loss
