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
