ola 57 ao1

Question 1

lega principale governing ol to lawful visitors

Answer 1

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Question 2

“occupiers” defined under ola 57

Answer 2

someone in control of the premises ( wheat v lacon)

Question 3

premises defined under ola 57

Answer 3

land, buildings, / any fixed/ movable structure

wheeler v copas

Question 4

who’s a lawful visitor under ola 57

Answer 4

invitees, licensees , someone with a contractual / legal right to enter

Question 5

common duty of care under section 2 (!) of ola 57

Answer 5

take reasonable steps to keep lawful visitors safe for the purpose which they are invited

Question 6

how does ola 57 address children as visitors

Answer 6

higher duty of care owed under section 2 (3)(a)

glasgow corporation v Taylor

Question 7

what should occupiers assume about young children

Answer 7

they’re being supervised by someone

Phipps v rochester corporation

Question 8

whats allurement in ola 57

Answer 8

items that are attractive to children e.g bright coloured poisonous berries

glasgow corporation v Taylor

Question 9

how does ola. 57 treat risks associated with tradesmen

Answer 9

tradesmen should guard against risks associated with their jobes

roles v Nathan

Question 10

when is an occupier not liable for work completed by an independent contractor

Answer 10

• if employing the contractor was reasonable , competent , and if the work is inspected

Hazeldine v Daw

Question 11

how can occupier discharge their duty under section 2 (4)(a)

Answer 11

By providing a sufficient warning

(Rae v Mars Ltd).

Question 12

defense of Volenti under Section 2(5) OLA 1957?

Answer 12

A lawful visitor who willingly accepts the risk negates the duty of care.

Question 13

What is contributory negligence?

Answer 13

A visitor’s compensation is reduced based on their contribution to the loss (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945).

Question 14

ao3 , how does 57 ensure fairness between occupiers and visitors

Answer 14

• doc requires occupiers to keep visitors reasonably safe, not totally safe
• must take steps to get rid of the danger but aren’t liable for accidents/ indefinite risks
• personal responsibility - Laverton

Question 15

what type of test is done to determine if an occupier has met their duty

Answer 15

• • judged by whether they acted reasonably to make sure visitors are reasonably safe

Question 16

how is the law fair to claimants regarding definition of “occupier” and “premises”

Answer 16

-occupier = defined in common law, as person in control of the premises - wheat v lacon

premises - broad def, allows for various types of claims

multiple occupiers = higher chance of success

Question 17

additional protection of children under 57

Answer 17

• occ must prepare for children to be less careful than adult- s2(3)(a), Glasgow corp v Taylor
• doctrine of allurement - protects children drawn to interesting b ut dangerous objects , treating them as visitors not trespassers , ( jolley v sutton lbc)

Question 18

how does the law balance fairness between 57 and 84

Answer 18

-both acts require occ to have knowledge of the danger

• occupiers not liable for unknown dangers
• 84= duty to protect trespassers only when reasonable, considering individual circumstances , balances fairness

Question 19

what can successful claimants sue for under 57

Answer 19

• pi/ death
• property damage
• economic loss from property damage ( recovery costs)

Question 20

does 57 apply to all types of lawful visitors

Answer 20

yes