ola 57 ao3

Question 1

strength - simplification of the law

Answer 1

• replaced confusing common law, where diff types of visitors , had diff levels of protection ,
• now = all lawful visitors = same rights
• consistency , fairer , everyone able to understand their rights
• but means that occupiers who were protected before from people e.g invited but reckless visitors , are harder to defend

Question 2

strength - standard of duty

Answer 2

• need to keep them reasonably safe, dont have to remove all risk
• fair , bc not expected to make it 100% risk free, if it was, it would be inpractical +unfair financial burden

HOWEVER
- some ppl argue , reasonably sad = too vague, makes occupiers avoid liability

Question 3

strength - objective test for duty of care

Answer 3

• based on what reasonable occupier would do
  -stops unfairness , as based on facts, not personal opinion

HOWEVER
- whats considered ‘ reasonable ‘ = debatable , leads to inconsistencies in judgement

Question 4

strength - multiple occupiers

Answer 4

• allows multiple occupiers to be liable ( wheat v lacon)
• higher chance of success
• can sue more than 1 party

HOWEVER
- liability shared , even if 1 party had less control of premises than other

Question 5

strength - children

Answer 5

• recognises, children = less careful , need extra protection ,( glasgow corp v Taylor)
• doctrine of allurement , ensures children attracted to dangers ( jolley v Sutton), treated as visitors not trespassers

HOWEVER
- hard for occupiers, must anticipate every danger that could attract child

Question 6

limitation - compnsation culture

Answer 6

• lawful visistors, think that every injruy they suffer = compensated for it
  -unnessacary claims , increased costs 4 business
• HOWEVER
• some courts pushing back on it e.g laverton v kiapasha
• some accidents just accidents