OLA 84 - Tort Law Flashcards
When would occupiers liability be relevant?
When injury/loss has arisen from the state of the premises
Who does the OLA 1984 Act apply to?
Trespassers who are injured by reason of any danger caused by the state of premises
What is a premises? Case?
Fixed or moveable structure - S1(3)(a) OLA 1957 Wheeler V Copas
What is an occupier? Case?
Someone who has control over the premises - Wheat V Lacon
Who is a trespasser? Case?
Someone who doesn’t have permission to be there/goes beyond their permission - The Calgarth Case
What must be established in S1(1)? Case?
Claim must arise out of the state of premises (or things done/omitted to be done on the premises) - Buckett V Staffordshire CC
There is no automatic DoC - When is duty owed by an occupier?
If three requirements under S1(3) are met
What are the three requirements under s1(3)?
Is occupier aware of danger?
Does occupier know C is in vicinity of danger?
Can he reasonably be expected to offer some protection?
Case for “Is occupier aware of danger?”
Rhind V Astbury Water Park
Case for “Does occupier know C is in vicinity of danger?”
Donoghue V Folkestone Properties
Case for “Can he reasonably be expected to offer some protection?”
Tomlinson V Congleton BC
Case for considering whether risk was obvious?
Ratcliff V McConnell
What must be established in s1(4)?
Has D met the duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the T is not injured by reason of danger?
If relevant - What is under s1(5)?
Has a warning been used?
If relevant - case for “does warning sufficiently warn of danger?” Other considerations?
Westwood V Post Office (consider age of T if they are child)
If relevant - cases for “Danger is obvious, no need for warning?”
Tomlinson V Coglenton BC
Donoghue V Folkestone Properties
If relevant - Case for “Has C contributed to own losses?”
Sayers V Harlow UDC
If relevant - cases for “Has C consented to risk?”
Haynes V Harwood
Ratcliff V McConnell
