T/Occupiers liability 1957

Question 1

intro?

Answer 1

-C can claim for occupiers liabilty act 1957 for the injuries suffered whilst on d’s land
-the common duty of care states the an occupier owes a tudy of care to lawful visitors

Question 2

define occupier ?

Answer 2

someone who has ‘occupational control’ over the premises.
-they need not to be the only owner or physical occupier (wheat v lacon).

Question 3

Common duty of care under s.2(2)

Answer 3

-under s.2(2) 1957 act an occupier should take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to see the visitor will be safe of the premisis he is invited to
-a vistor is someone invited or has an implied licence(lowrey v walker)
-may imply a licence if there is allurment that draws people onto the property (taylor v glasgow)

Question 4

Proven that is in breach of of common duty ?

Answer 4

-s.2(3)(a)must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
-s.2(3)(b) an occupier may expect a persons in the exericise of his calling will appreictae and guard against any special risks ordinarily incedent to it (roles v nathan)
-s.2(4)(b) an occupier is not liable for dangers created by an independant contracter if they said that the work was properly done (haseline v daw)
- s.2(4)(a) warning signs can discharge an occupiers duty as in (roles v nathan)

Question 5

outro ?

Answer 5

Therefore C can claim/not claim against d for injuries