Paper 2: occupiers liability

Question 1

What is Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

What is Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Answer 2

This sets our a similar rule for trespassers who are injured on the occupiers property

Question 3

OLA 1957: what must be proven? (5)

Answer 3

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

Question 4

OLA 1957: definition of an occupier

Answer 4

In the case of Wheat v Lacon, an occupier was defined by Lord Denning as “sufficient degree of control over premises”

Question 5

OLA 1957: Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Answer 5

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

Question 6

OLA 1957: What section did lawful visitor come under?

Answer 6

s.1(2)

Question 7

OLA 1957: What is the definition a visitor?

Answer 7

Is anyone with a lawful right to be on the premises

Question 8

OLA 1957: licensees definition

Answer 8

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

Question 9

OLA 1957: invitees definition

Answer 9

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

Question 10

OLA 1957: contractual agreement definition

Answer 10

The terms of the contract may determine someones right to enter; e.g. person who has bought an entry ticket for an event

Question 11

OLA 1957: enter with a legal right

Answer 11

Some individuals do not require permission e.g. police, meter reader, landlord

Question 12

OLA 1957: what do the four visitors have in common?

Answer 12

They all have permission to be there

Question 13

OLA 1957: who does not come under this

Answer 13

Trespassers- someone who does not have permission to enter

Question 14

OLA 1957: premises definition

Answer 14

‘Fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’

Question 15

OLA 1957: what does premises come under

Answer 15

s.1(3)(a)

Question 16

OLA 1957: Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

OLA 1957: what section does children come under

Answer 17

s.2(3)(a)

Question 18

OLA 1957: about occupiers liability to children

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

OLA 1957: Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1992)

Answer 19

Held: the council were held responsible as they were aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children

Question 20

OLA 1957: Jolly v Sutton LBC (2000)

Answer 20

Held: the council were found liable under the OLA 1957. It was foreseeable that boys would ‘meddle’ with an abandoned boat

Question 21

OLA 1957: Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Answer 21

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

Question 22

OLA 1957: what does a skilled visitor come under and what does it say?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

OLA 1957: Roles v Nathan (1963)

Answer 23

Held: the occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of this particular danger

Question 24

OLA 1957: Haseldine v Daw&Son Ltd (1941)

Answer 24

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

Question 25

OLA 1957: Bottomley v Todmodern Cricket Club (2003)

Answer 25

Held: club liable as the contractor had no insurance so the cricket club had not exercised reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors

Question 26

OLA 1957: Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Answer 26

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

Question 27

OLA 1957: steps for an independent contractor

Answer 27

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

Question 28

OLA 1984: Addie v Dumbreck (1929)

Answer 28

No duty of care is owed to trespassers

Question 29

OLA 1984: what must be proven (4)

Answer 29

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

Question 30

OLA 1984: three sections to a duty of care

Answer 30

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

Question 31

OLA 1984: Tomlinson v Congleton DC (2003)

Answer 31

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

Question 32

OLA 1984: Donoghue v Folestone Properties (2003)

Answer 32

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

Question 33

OLA 1984: Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 33

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

Question 34

OLA 1984: what does s.1(4) state

Answer 34

The occupier must ‘take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see the he is not injured by reason of the danger’