Ola 57 Flashcards
In Occupiers’ Liability 1957, when does liability arise in relation to the condition of the premises?
Liability arises when the injury is due to the state of the premises, specifically a hazardous condition present on the property.
Who can be a potential defendant under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957? Include the definition and relevant case reference.
A potential defendant is an occupier, defined as an individual or entity in control of the premises.
• Wheat v Lacon: Defines an occupier as someone with control over the premises.
Is ownership or possession necessary for someone to be an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957? Include a relevant case reference.
No, ownership or possession is not required—control is enough.
• Harris v Birkenhead Corporation: Demonstrates that control over the premises suffices, even without ownership or possession.
define as “premises”? Include the key examples and statutory reference.
Premises is defined as any fixed or movable structure, including aircraft and vessels.
• s.1(3)(a) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Does common law expand the definition of “premises”? Include relevant case references.
Yes, common law includes lifts and ladders as “premises.”
• Halsdine v Daw: Lifts considered as premises.
• Wheeler v Compass: Ladders also considered as premises.
What is the first requirement for a claimant under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
The claimant must be a lawful visitor to claim under the Act.
Who can be considered a lawful visitor under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957? Include the different types of visitors.
A lawful visitor can include:
One with express permission, like a friend.
licensee (e.g., a postman),
those with a legal right to enter (e.g., the police),
and those with implied permission (e.g., entering a shop).
What is the duty of care owed by the occupier under Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957? Include relevant sections and case references.
Under s.2(1), the occupier owes a common duty of care to the claimant, ensuring their safety while on the premises.
• Under s.2(2), the occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors, but doesn’t have to eliminate all risks.
• Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway.: The presence of warning signs can demonstrate reasonable steps to protect visitors.
How is the duty owed by an occupier assessed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
The duty owed by an occupier is assessed under the reasonable man standard, meaning the occupier must act as a reasonable person would in ensuring the safety of visitors.
What is the duty of care owed by an occupier to children under of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and include the specific section
Section 2(3)(a) imposes a higher standard of care for children, requiring the occupier to ensure the premises are reasonably safe for children of that age and understanding. The standard is measured subjectively.
How does the occupier’s duty of care differ for children compared to adults?
Children are less careful than adults, so the occupier must be prepared for this and ensure the premises are safe for children of their age and understanding.
What case demonstrates the occupier’s duty to take extra precautions for children when it comes to allurements
In Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, it was shown that a hazardous condition could be seen as an attraction to children, requiring the occupier to take extra precautions.
Can an occupier rely on parental supervision as part of their duty of care towards children and which case
Yes, the occupier may rely on parental supervision as part of their overall duty of care, as established in Phipps v Rochester Corporation.
What does the occupies liability act see when it comes to skilled visitors and which section is this under?
Section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 states that skilled visitors must appreciate and guard against risks ordinarily incident to their expertise.
Which case demonstrates that an occupier is not liable if a skilled visitor fails to guard against risks they should know about?
Roles v Nathan shows that skilled visitors are expected to guard against risks within their expertise, and the occupier is not liable if they fail to do so.
What the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 state regarding liability for independent contractors and which section does this come under?
Under Section 2(4), an occupier is not liable for injuries suffered by visitors due to the negligence of an independent contractor, but only if they can prove three things.
What 3 things must an occupier prove to avoid liability for an independent contractor’s negligence? Include cases
The occupier must prove:
1. It was reasonable to trust the independent contractor with the work (as seen in Haseldine v Daw).
2. The contractor must be competent to carry out the work, as demonstrated in Ferguson v Welsh.
3.The occupier must show they checked the work was properly carried out, as seen in Woodward v Mayor of Hastings.
Which case shows it was reasonable to trust the independent contractor with the work
Haseldine v Daw
Which case shows the contractor was competent out the work
Ferguson v Welsh
Which case shows that the occupier check the work to see if it was carried out properly
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
What does occupies liability act say about warning signs as a defence and under which section?
Under section 2(4)a a warning can release liability if in all the circumstances it is in enough to make a visitor reasonably safe
Are warnings always enough to protect an occupier from liability?
No, sometimes warnings alone aren’t sufficient, and additional precautions, like barriers, may be needed.
Which case demonstrates that sometimes warnings alone aren’t enough to protect an occupier from liability?
Rae v Mars shows that warnings may not always be enough, and extra precautions like barriers may be necessary.
What does the occupied liability act say about exclusion clauses and under what section?
Under section 2(1) exclusion clauses are allowed by agreement or otherwise meaning liability can be excluded through contract terms by communicating notice
