Paper 2: occupiers liability Flashcards
What is Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
This sets out the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors and that if the duty is breached and damage (injury) done to the visitor as a result, then they owed compensation
What is Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
This sets our a similar rule for trespassers who are injured on the occupiers property
OLA 1957: what must be proven? (5)
1) D must be the occupier;
2) V must be a lawful visitor (if they are a trespasser, this comes under the OLA 1984)
3) The place where injury occurred must satisfy a premises
4) D must owe a common duty of care;
5) Defences/Remedies
OLA 1957: definition of an occupier
In the case of Wheat v Lacon, an occupier was defined by Lord Denning as “sufficient degree of control over premises”
OLA 1957: Wheat v Lacon (1966)
Facts: A pub manager lent out rooms to a guest in his private quarters to a paying guest
Held: Both the brewery and the pub manager were occupiers, Lacon&Co were the owners of the pub, and the manager, even though not the owner of the premises was under sufficient control of it that he was also deemed the occupier
OLA 1957: What section did lawful visitor come under?
s.1(2)
OLA 1957: What is the definition a visitor?
Is anyone with a lawful right to be on the premises
OLA 1957: licensees definition
Anyone with permission to be on the premises such as delivery person. These people have an implied permission to enter the premises by the front gate and walk up the path to the front door
OLA 1957: invitees definition
Friends, relatives, people invited onto land for a purpose; these people have express permission to be there e.g. to give a quote for building work
OLA 1957: contractual agreement definition
The terms of the contract may determine someones right to enter; e.g. person who has bought an entry ticket for an event
OLA 1957: enter with a legal right
Some individuals do not require permission e.g. police, meter reader, landlord
OLA 1957: what do the four visitors have in common?
They all have permission to be there
OLA 1957: who does not come under this
Trespassers- someone who does not have permission to enter
OLA 1957: premises definition
‘Fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’
OLA 1957: what does premises come under
s.1(3)(a)
OLA 1957: Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)
Held: CA held tripping and slipping is a part of everyday life. The obligation is to make them reasonably safe for visitors, not guarantee their safety
OLA 1957: what section does children come under
s.2(3)(a)
OLA 1957: about occupiers liability to children
- Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
- What may pose no threat to an adult may be very dangerous to a child
- Measured subjectively according to child’s age
- Occupiers are expected to guard against any kind of ‘allurement’ or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm
OLA 1957: Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1992)
Held: the council were held responsible as they were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children
OLA 1957: Jolly v Sutton LBC (2000)
Held: the council were found liable under the OLA 1957. It was foreseeable that boys would ‘meddle’ with an abandoned boat
OLA 1957: Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
Held: the court decided that the council were not liable because the D’s could expect that the parents would be with them in such an open space, or would have checked that there were no dangers on the land for the children to encounter
OLA 1957: what does a skilled visitor come under and what does it say?
s.2(3)(b) states ‘an occupier can expect that a person in relation to activities carried out within they trade should appreciate and guard against any risks
OLA 1957: Roles v Nathan (1963)
Held: the occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of this particular danger
OLA 1957: Haseldine v Daw&Son Ltd (1941)
Held: the occupier was not liable for the negligent repair of the lift because it was a highly specialist activity and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm
OLA 1957: Bottomley v Todmodern Cricket Club (2003)
Held: club liable as the contractor had no insurance so the cricket club had not exercised reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors
OLA 1957: Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
The occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly and the danger should have been obvious to them
OLA 1957: steps for an independent contractor
1) Must be reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to the independent contractor
2) The occupier must take reasonable steps to check that the contractor hired is competent to carry out the task
3) The occupier must check the work has been properly done, if possible
OLA 1984: Addie v Dumbreck (1929)
No duty of care is owed to trespassers
OLA 1984: what must be proven (4)
1) C must be a trespasser under s.1(1)(a)
2) Duty of care is owed under s.1(3)
3) Breach of the duty under s.1(4)
4) Defences/Remedies
OLA 1984: three sections to a duty of care
s. 1(3)(a) he is aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists;
s. 1(3)(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger; and
s. 1(3)(c) the risk is one against which, in all circumstances of the case, he may reasonable be expected to offer the offer some protection
OLA 1984: Tomlinson v Congleton DC (2003)
1(3)(a) was satisfied- the danger was not due to the state of the premises but was as a result of C diving into the water
1(3)(b) was satisfied- D knew that trespassers were swimming in the water, as shown by their decision to the further steps to deter others doing this
1(3)(c) was satisfied- the risk was not one that the defendant should have to guard against but one that the trespasser chose to run
OLA 1984: Donoghue v Folestone Properties (2003)
Held: the court said that the occupier did not owe a duty of care bevies a reasonable occupier would not expect that a trespasser might be present or jumpy into the harbour at this time of the year
OLA 1984: Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)
Held: the CA stated that since the child appreciated the danger, it was not the state of the premises but the child was doing on them which was the cause of harm so there was no liability
OLA 1984: what does s.1(4) state
The occupier must ‘take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see the he is not injured by reason of the danger’
