sem 2 lesson 3 - OCCUPIERS LIABILITY Flashcards
What is a stautory duty of care
duty of care imposed by virtue of an act of parliament
give me example of stautory duty of care
consumer protection act 1987
health and safety at work act 1974
occupiers liability act 1957 & 84
what are the two occypiers liability acts we are looking at and what is important about htem
1957
1984
they dont replace each other and they complete the regime we have for occupiers liability
what is occupier liabilty act 1957
governs liability for lawful visitors
imposes duty of care upon occupiers of land to take care of others who come onto their land
descirbe the 1st occupiers liability act in two words
most generous
who is a lawful visitor oputiend in the 1dt occupiers liabiltiy act 1957
on premises by lawful invitation e.g invited for dinner
what is occupier liability act 1984
governs liabilty for tresspassers
the occupiers act 1984 adds
extra responsibilty
why does the occupiers act 1984 add extra responsibility
as its nto just those people you invited onto your land you’ve got to keep safe not concerned w tresppassers
uninvited guest
occupiers have xx but xx to keep trespassers safe also
occupiers have SOME but LESS repsonsibilites to keep trespassers safe also
lawful visitor definition
got lawful purpose of/ legimtimate reason for being on the land
express and implied permission
trespasser
not invited or permitted to be on the land
occupier
person/s with the day to day control of land
wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd 1966
give example of express permission
please come round to house for dinner
(making it clear they can be here)
give example of implied permission
post person delivering mail
you havent said they are invited onto your property but put in a pos box implying permission to be somewhere
if i invite somone to my house whre are they liekly to be invited expressly
kitchen area
living room
toilet
if i invite someone to ebin my house were havent i given them permission to go
into my bedroom and look aound
a person can move from a x to a x
vistor to trespasser
how can a person move from being a visitor to a trespasser
depending on actions
i.e if not been given express or implied permission to be somewhere and for what purpose
you are allowed to be somehwere for the
purpose you have been invited there
give exmaple fo when someone moves from visittor to trespasser
post man delivering mail but if go round the back of the house and garden after become a trespasser
already dropped of mail and got no reason to be there
when someone moves from a visitor to a trespasser what does your responsibilty to them do
reduces (Slightly)
occupier of the land not always the
owner
the law is taking a what appriach by sayong pccupoer os not the owner of land as what is the point of the law
practiicla appoach
the point of law is to make it safe for people to be on land
it is not necessarily thwe hwo how has the msot control over the land
owner
give example of their being more than one occupier of land
got owner of land and somene who is managing it day to day
which case established you canhave more than one occupier of land at a time
Wheat v Lacon
wheat v lacon 1966
wheats go on hol stay in pub
lacon - owner of pub
richardsons are licesnnsees of pub
pub is old, stairs are steep and no handrail on last 2 steps
one day they go down stairs and lightbulb not owkring
mr wheat falls down and dies
wife wants to pursue occupiers of land
why does wifef in wheat v lacon wan tto pursue occupiers of land
these are people responsbile for keeping them safe when on premises as lawful visstors are staying in pub
what does court say when wife pusuring occupier of land in wheat v lacon
although owner own pubs and therefore in theour have some repsonisbility for areass of the land
lciensees of pub are the ones w day to day control and coulve made it safe
in the wheat v lacon case why were there no claims made against Lacon
lacon not party installing handrails so one step distanced
why did ricardsons get great repsonibility
they were the occupiers (even though don’t own land) and in charge of dem tings there
check if got charged
what is the definiton of land extended to
things on land - premises buildings etc
who do you have to be to be responsible to other people entering your land accoridng to the law
an occupier of land
what is the common duty of care - 1957 Act section 2(2)
occupirs have a duty towards visitors to take such care as in all the circumnstances of the case is reasonable
to see that teh vistor will reaosnably be safe in using the premises for the purpose which he is invited or permitted to be there
what case shows occupier liability in the extended case of land
jolley v london borough of sutton 2000
jolley v london borough of sutton 2000
Council ownd estate on which there is some common land
Boat deposited on common land
Some kids start palying w boat - plan to fix it up and reuse it
they hoist the boat up and boat lands on one of kids and paralysses them
Kids family pursue the council
Council say boat not ours just on the land
Court find boat is in cluded in their land - and hold ocuncil repsonisble - aslo cause kids meet the test of being lawful visitors w implied permission to be on the land
common duty of care - 1957 Act excludes who
lawful visitors not doing what they supposed to do and not using the premises as they have been invited to
what case is used to demostrate common duty of care 1957 ACT
Darby v National Trust 2001
the stanndard of care in common duty of care 1957 act is not
perfection
as standard of reasonable care act is not perfection what do we go back to
reasonableness test
reasonableness test
got to keep people reasonably safe and take such car eas is reasonable - i.e so don’t got to do incredible things or necessrily everything only what is reasonable to protect people to a reasonable standard
give example fo taking creaosnable care in common duty of care 1957 act
got building sights whihc are inherently dangeorus
court dont insit you eliminate all risks on building site
but youll take reasonable steps to insure they are reasoably safe e.g giing hard hat and letting them no where they are supposed to walk
in common duty of care act 1957 - when we talking about reasonable care why are occupiers not expected to eliminate risk completely
people expected to take care of themselves esp if they over the age of 18
what case is used to show common duty of care 1957 ACT- darby v national trust
Family go to national trust park and land has lakes
some lakes are for fishing and so got sign that say no swimming and some lakes w no signs
darby family have pcinic by lake
mr darby plays game wher he hides under water and pops up and waves he dont pop up last time and drowns cause he trapped in weeds
wife wants to pursue national trust saying you repsonsible for husbands safety when he was at your national trust park - he drowned and you didnt keep us safe
what do national trust say in response to DARBY
you an adult
clearly looking at lake not swimming pool and it didnt have a life guard
so got to take repsonisbliy for risks you take as an adult
not entitled to entire protection and elmination of tisk from your own life
what does court sya in darby national trust case and why
agree w NT
if htey said NT responsibile you would open wide floodgates and everyone whoever make a poor choice for ethmself
no occupiers liabilty
adults are allwoed to make poor decisions for themselves why
as part of freedom so held accountable for their own mistakes
what is S.3
the degree of care and of want of care
what is S.3. degree of care and of want of care
an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
s.3. dwals withthe extent of
how careful occupiers have to be
depends on who you are
there is a high level of care for who
kids
why is the a greater levle of risk to expers and so a lower level of care
you are on land where you understand risks better than everyone
e.g surveyor goes on dangerous roof
court woould say you best understand the risk so not fonna give occupier strict and strong erpsonisblities for yu actions
i.e not gonna allow exceptional damages as you are the expert here
what case do we use to show S.3
Glasgow coroporation v taylor 1922
what happened in glasgow v tailor 1922
kids in botanical gardewn in glasgwo ate toxic red berry
taylor puseued botanical garden/glasgow corp under occupier liability
why were botanical gardens pusrued under occupiers laibiltiy
didnt jeep kids safe
adults may havebeen able to assess risk but kids couldn’t as cant read sign
what s the summary bit under glasgow corp v taylor 1922
an occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so
if got an allurement whata re you expecred to do
take extra special care
what is an allurement
tempting things on property that may attract people
example of allurement -
swimming pool being attractive to teenagers
when there is an allurement what test will be apploed
reasonable test
give example of reasonable test ini a driained swimming pool
swmming pool is alluting
empty swimming pool is danberous
reasonable to take action to try to mitigate them
what were the strawberries periceinved as to the kids
an allurement
warning signs
what is S.4(a)
where damge is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier
the warning is not to be trreated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumnstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasosnably safe
in dealing w S.4(a) there is no obligation to
warn of an obvious risk
law says signs are only as usefu as htey are useful what does hti smean
means just putting up a sing and saying I’m not responsible doesn’t cut it if sign doesn’t work and isn’t effective - got to actually be prevenitng harm
who is not gonna be able to benefit fro usinng a sign
kids
people that dont speak teh langguage
people sigt impaited
a cordon is only as useful as it is usegul what does this mean i.e give me an example
the cordon is high up
and the child is lower
sum up S.4
you’re not absolved of responisbility just casue you gave warnings
esp if ineffective in keeping people reasonably safe
give an exa,ple of a warning sign keepign people reasonably safe
if in tourst attraction where no one speaks english - putting up pictures
what casw shows us that there is no obligation on anybody about obvious tisk
cotton v derbyshire dales dsitricy council 1994
cotton v derbyshire dales district council 1994
coton fancied walking along edge on derbsyshire dales
ther was a sing saying its a steep walk
as you go along trail the sign disappear
cotton alls donw and severley injured - wants to sue council for no signs
court says - you were on the edge tis is a risk so obvious that you are the only one responsibel for taking care of yourself
risks willingly acepted by the visitor is what section
s.5
what is s.5 risks wilingly accepted by the visitor
the common duty of care doesnt impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly acepted as t/his by the visiot
no obligation to visitors willingly accepting risk
sometimes risks are what by vistiros when tehy ste into a property
willingly acepted
when youa re invited onto a proprey what are youa ccepting but what does this also depend on
some level of risk in which you can’t claim someone else is responsible
depend on story of what you did on premises - determines whether anyone should be responsible for you
wat case do we use for s.5 risks willingly accepted by the visitor
tomlinson v congleton borough council 2003
what is tomlinson v congleton borough council 2003
19yr old visit qarry- not suposed to but council aware people fo to quarroes- they put a fence but always got broken down by people they would fix it and warn people - #cycle
tom decided to stand at top jump in and paralused for rest og his life and wants to purseu coucil
do the court analysis of tom v conglton borough council
was he a lawful visitor and wat was he ther for
accept argument he was a lawful visitor- by implied permission as overtime the laxness of the council made it implied - so council had repsonsiblity whilst he was there
what was he there for - he says he was there for a good time but steps h took was way to far - when cliomned to top and jumped in he was a trespasseer as that is not the purpise he was invited to be ther e
this so dangerous coucnil woild not give anyone permsision to do
and at this point he was aware of risk to himslef
trespaser so less repsoonsiblity
trespasser - 1984 act
occupier has a duty to persons to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer an injury on the premises
what is the repsosniblity for occuoier to respassers
reasonable care to keep people reasonably safe but only if certain corucmnstances applt
what are teh three circumnstances that make hte occupier liable for trespassers
occupier knew of danger /(ought to have reasonably known)
occupier knows or has reasonable ground to believe a trespasser is in the vicinity/ (or know trespassers use property)
danger is one in which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection from
give exmaple of occupier knew of danger/ought to have reasonably known but reasobly didnt know
sinkhole appears in field 10 mins after you go home and someone falls in
wh0does the occupier knew of danger catch out
people who say if i didinit know aboutit how could i prevent it
and they have a duty to know so should be checking property
occupier knows/has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in the vicinity means people cant just
bury head in sand
what does 3) danger is one in whihc occupeir may reasonablt be expected to offer the trespasser dsome protection from ) mean
onnly repsonsibel to trespasser if the danger is something you could have done something about that wouldve protected trespasser
and changed teh situation
if it didnt make any difference you dodnt have to do it and so you aren’t responsible
what 2 cases do we use for trespassers act 1984
scott v assocaited british ports 2000
revill v newberry 1996
scott v associated british ports 2–
british port have ports and there is a railway
after railways there is embankment that teens use for getting high and drink then jump on trains
scott falls of train and looses arm and leg and wants to pursue brisiths port ……..
do the test that the courts did
knew of danger and trespassers - didn’t know the 1st time but did after so might be responsible
danger you reasonable expected to offer the trespasser some protection from - real danger is trespasser here, how you gonna stop someone want to kump on train- could have done someting e,eg put a fence but it was heavily to do w the person who was a risk to themselves
what happened in revill v newberry
newberry shot friednsd when they broke in
he stayed in shed til he heard them and shot them
revill chooses to pursue mr newberry
in revil and newberry case run teh trespassers liablity test
know of danger - his gun isthe danger so yes
did he know trespassers were in his vicinity - big yah as he was waiting for them
could he have offerd protectionn - yes by not shooting him or by at least warning him got gun and giving him the chance to leave
what did court say in case of revill and newberry
newberry resposnibel even though revill was on property to commit criminal act
what happend in compensation.charges side of revill v newberry
revill convicted in cirminal courts
newberry responsible to him for his safety on his property
revill got ocmpensation from newberyr but reduced to 50% cause his own irresponsibelt for him ther in 1st place
what can be claimed in 1957 and 1984 act
1957 Act - Death , personal injury and any other damage
1984 Act - Death and Personal Injury only
if lawful visitor get injure as dinig table falls through what may they be able to claim under
1957 act
with the 1957 act what are you actually able to claim loss for
everything that is caused by this e.g table falling through - e,g watch if it get broken
what can trespassers claim in one word compared to lawful visitors
less
why do trespassers only get compensaation for death and eprosnal injury
casue we dont want you to do or get injurd byt we care less about extra loss if youw ere a trespasser
