Ola 84 Flashcards
What does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 apply to?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies to trespassers who are injured due to a danger arising from the state of the premises.
What does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 impose regarding the duty of care under which section
Section 1(1)(a) imposes a minimum standard of care, applying a duty in respect of people other than lawful visitors, specifically trespassers.
Who is considered the defendant (the occupier) under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, and what must they have?case
The occupier is the person who has control over the premises, as seen in Wheat v Lacon.
How is premises defined under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984? And under which section
Under Section 1(3)(a), premises includes any fixed or movable structure, such as a vessel, aircraft, or even a ladder, as seen in Wheeler v Copas
How do you determine if the claimant is a trespasser under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984? Case
A person is a trespasser if they lack permission to be on the premises or if they are exceeding the permission granted, as demonstrated in the Calgarth case.
Is there an automatic duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 for trespassers?
No, there is no automatic duty of care. A duty of care arises if certain requirements are met under Section 1(3).
What are the three requirements for an occupier to owe a duty of care to a trespasser under Section 1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
occupier owes a duty if:
1. They are aware of the danger. Rhind v Astbury Water Park,
2. They have knowledge of trespassers in the vicinity of the danger. Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
3. It is reasonable to expect that they offer some protection against the risk . Ratcliff v McConnell,
Which case demonstrates that the occupier must be aware of the danger for a duty of care to be owed to a trespasser under Section 1(3)?
In Rhind v Astbury Water Park, the defendant was not aware of the danger (a hidden fibreglass container), so no duty of care was owed.
Which case shows that the occupier must have knowledge of trespassers in the vicinity of the danger?under section 1 (3)
In Donoghue v Folkestone Properties, the occupier had no reason to expect trespassers in the area during winter, especially at night, so no duty of care was owed.
Which case demonstrates that it must be reasonable to expect the occupier to offer protection to a trespasser?
In Ratcliff v McConnell, the risk of diving into the pool was obvious, well-known, and had clear warning signs, so it wasn’t reasonable to expect the occupier to offer additional protection.
What must the occupier do to meet the duty of care to a trespasser and under which Section of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
The occupier must take reasonable care to prevent injury to a trespasser, as required under Section 1(4).
What standard is used to assess the duty of care owed to a trespasser under Section 1(4) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
The standard of care is objective
Which factors are taken into consideration when looking at-the duty owed
factors such as the
age of the trespasser,
the likelihood of harm,
the seriousness of the injury,
the utility of the act, and
the practicality of precautions
How does a warning affect the duty of care owed to a trespasser and under which Section of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
Under Section 1(5), a warning can discharge the occupier’s duty of care if it effectively informs the trespasser of the danger,
Which case demonstrates that warning signs can be effective to warn of the danger
as seen in Westwood v The Post Office.
Can a warning defence be used if the trespasser is a child under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
No, a warning may not be sufficient if the trespasser is a child, as additional precautions, such as barriers, may be necessary to ensure safety.
What defence is provided under Section 1(6) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
Section 1(6) provides the defence of volenti (consent), where a trespasser may not claim damages if they voluntarily accepted the risk of injury.
What is another defence available under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, apart from volenti?
Contributory negligence is another defence, where the damages may be reduced if the trespasser contributed to their own injury.
