OLA 84

Question 1

What section of the OLA 84 defines what the duty applies to?

Answer 1

s1(1)(a)

Question 2

What section of the OLA 84 discusses when a duty of care is owed if the occupier is aware of the danger?

Answer 2

s1(3)

Question 3

What does s1(1)(a) of the OLA 84 apply to?

Answer 3

s1(1)(a) - Applies to injury on the premises due to the state of the premises (e.g property in dangerous condition) or things done or omitted to be done on them.

Question 4

Under s1(3) of OLA 84, when is a duty of care owed? (3)

Answer 4

Duty of care is owed if:
- The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

• The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is in the vicinity of the danger (whether they have lawful authority to be there or not).
• The risk is one against which the occupier may be expected to offer some protection.

Question 5

What does s1(4) of the OLA 84 require the occupier to do?

Answer 5

The occupier must “take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger.”

Question 6

How can the duty of care be discharged under s1(5) of OLA 84?

Answer 6

By taking reasonable steps to warn of the danger or to discourage people from incurring the risk. (e.g using warning signs)

Question 7

According to s1(8) of the OLA 84, what is NOT covered by the occupier’s liability?

Answer 7

The occupier does NOT incur any liability for loss of or damage to property due to any breach of duty. (e.g phone, personal belongings)

Question 8

What section in OLA 84 discusses the duty of the occupier?

Answer 8

s1(4)

Question 9

what section in OLA 84 discusses how the occupier can discharge their duty?

Answer 9

s1(5)

Question 10

What section in the OLA 84 states what is NOT covered in the act?

Answer 10

s1(8)

Question 11

Are occupiers liable for both property damage and personal injury of the trespasser?

Answer 11

No. S1(8) states that occupiers are not liable for property damage. They’re only liable for personal injury.

Question 12

What is a trespasser according to the OLA 1984? Following what case?

Answer 12

Following Addie V Dumbreck, a trespasser is ‘a person who goes on land without any sort of permission and whose presence is unknown. Or if known, their presence is objected to.’

Question 13

What does the OLA 1984 cover?

Answer 13

It covers personal injuries to unlawful visitors due to dangers on the premises but does not cover damage to property.

Question 14

What are the main facts of Rhind V Astbury Waterpark?
What was the outcome and what did it establish?

Answer 14

Main facts: Occupier did not know about a submerged fibreglass container in a lake. A trespasser ignored a warning “Private Property. Strictly no swimming.” and was injured by objects in the water.

Outcome: Occupier was not held liable because they were unaware of the danger - no duty was owed.

Apply: Occupiers don’t owe a duty if they’re unaware of the danger on their premises.

Question 15

What are the main facts of Higgs V Foster?
What was the outcome and what did it establish?

Answer 15

Main Facts: A police officer, who was a trespasser, fell into an uncovered inspection pit while conducting surveillance.

Outcome: Occupier was not liable because they could not have anticipated the police officer’s presence near the pit.

Apply: Occupiers aren’t liable if they cannot reasonably foresee the presence of a trespasser in the vicinity of a danger.

Question 16

What are the main facts of Ratcliff V McConnell? What was the outcome?

Answer 16

Main Facts: A 19-year-old student dived into a college swimming pool at night, hitting his head on the bottom and getting seriously injured.

Outcome: Court decided the occupier was not liable and wasn’t required to warn adult trespassers because a shallow pool is an obvious danger.

Question 17

How does the time of day and year affect the occupier’s duty of care?

Answer 17

The time of day and year can be relevant in determining the occupier’s duty of care, particularly if these factors influence the visibility or severity of the danger.

Question 18

What are the main facts of Tomlinson V Congleton? What was the outcome?

Answer 18

Main Facts: A council park had a lake with warning signs. The council delayed making the lake inaccessible due to lack of funds. A trespasser swam and got injured by the sandy bottom leading to severe paralysis.

Outcome: HoL accepted the councils appeal and ruled they were not liable because the danger was obvious and the injury was mainly due to the trespasser’s actions, not the state of the premises. Also, council wouldn’t have breached their duty as it wasn’t reasonable to spend lots of money to prevent visitors being injured by obvious dangers.

Question 19

What is the duty owed under s1(4) of the OLA 1984?

Answer 19

The duty is to take reasonable care to ensure the trespasser is not injured by the danger present.

Question 20

What 4 factors determine the standard of care owed to a trespasser under s1(4)?

Answer 20

The standard is objective and depends on:

• Risk level.
• Nature of the premises.
• How reasonable it is to put safety measures in place.
• Age of the trespasser.

Question 21

What are the main facts of Keown V Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust? What was the outcome?

Answer 21

Main Facts: An 11-year-old boy climbed the exterior of a hospital to show off and fell, getting injured.

Outcome: The court ruled that the hospital was not liable because the boy understood the danger. The injury was due to his actions, not the state of the premises.

Apply: This case applies to situations where a child trespasser understands the risk. Occupiers are not liable if the danger comes from what the trespasser is doing, not from the premises.

Question 22

The duty owed under s1(4) applies to…

Answer 22

Both adult and child tresspassers

Question 23

What are the main facts of Westwood v Post Office? What was the outcome?

Answer 23

Main Facts: An employee of the Post Office, acting as a trespasser, entered an unlocked room despite the warning sign “Only the authorised attendant is permitted to enter” and was injured.

Outcome: Post Office was not liable because the warning sign was sufficient for an adult trespasser.

Apply: Warnings can be an effective defense under s1(5) of OLA 1984, especially for adult trespassers. For children, the effectiveness of a warning depends on their age and understanding.

Question 24

Who does OLA 84 apply to?

Answer 24

Trespassers