ola 57

Question 1

What is the primary focus of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?

Answer 1

The Act is concerned with lawful visitors

The Act establishes the duty of care owed to lawful visitors by occupiers.

Question 2

What duty do occupiers owe to lawful visitors under the OLA 1957?

Answer 2

A duty to keep lawful visitors reasonably safe

This duty encompasses ensuring that the premises are safe for lawful visitors.

Question 3

How is an ‘occupier’ defined under the OLA 1957?

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

According to the OLA 1957, what constitutes ‘premises’?

Answer 4

s1(3)(a)Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

This broad definition covers various types of property.

Question 5

Who qualifies as a ‘lawful visitor’ under the OLA 1957?

Answer 5

s1(2)Someone treated as an invitee or licensee at common law

This includes individuals with express or implied permission to enter.

Question 6

What is an ‘invitee’?

Answer 6

A person invited to enter premises with express permission

Invitees have a higher duty of care owed to them by the occupier.

Question 7

What is a ‘licensee’?

Answer 7

Persons with express/implied permission to be there for a particular time/purpose

Examples include attendees at a cinema or restaurant.

Question 8

What is the definition of a lawful visitor under statute?

Answer 8

Individuals with a right of entry under statute, such as police with a warrant

This category provides specific legal authority to enter premises.

Question 9

What does ‘contractual’ permission entail for lawful visitors?

Answer 9

Permission to be on premises granted through a contract, like an entry ticket

This applies to events or activities requiring purchase of entry.

Question 10

What is the common duty of care owed to lawful visitors by occupiers according to s2(2)?

Answer 10

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’.

Question 11

How must occupiers treat children in terms of care according to s2(3)(a)?

Answer 11

Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

This principle is supported by the case of Moloney v Lambeth LBC.

Question 12

What is the doctrine of allurement in the context of occupiers’ liability?

Answer 12

Occupiers should expect children to be attracted to potential dangers

This is highlighted in the case of Jolley v Sutton.

Question 13

According to Phipps v Rochester, what expectation do occupiers have regarding the supervision of children?

Answer 13

Children should be properly supervised by adults.

Question 14

What does s2(3)(b) state regarding specialist visitors?

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

What is the significance of the case Haseldine v Daw in the context of independent contractors?

Answer 15

It discusses the reasonable expectation of using an outside contractor.

Question 16

Under what condition can the duty of care be discharged according to Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd?

Answer 16

If the defendant acted as the reasonable man in the same circumstances to keep the visitor safe.

Question 17

What does s2(4) allow defendants to do to discharge their duty?

Answer 17

Provide reasonable warnings

This is illustrated in Woollins v British Celanese.

Question 18

What are the three main defenses available under s2(4)(b) regarding independent contractors?

Answer 18

1. Reasonable to bring in an outside contractor
2. Reasonable steps to ensure contractor’s competence
3. 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.

Question 19

What constitutes contributory negligence under s2(3)?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

In Brannon v Airtours, what is the key consideration regarding contributory negligence?

Answer 20

Is C partly to blame for the accident?

Question 21

What does Froom v Butcher illustrate regarding contributory negligence?

Answer 21

C did not cause the accident but made their injuries worse.

Question 22

What does s2(5) state about consent in the context of occupiers’ liability?

Answer 22

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)

Question 23

s(2)1 Excluding liability

Answer 23

clear and visible signs ( (Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd)

Question 24

• Terms under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (if applicable)

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Remedies

Answer 25

A successful C can claim for death and personal injury
- s1(3) OLA 1957 also claim for damage to property & consequential
economic loss