T/occupiers liability 1984

Question 1

Intro ?

Answer 1

C could claim against under the occupiers liability act 1984, for the the injuries suffered whilst on d’s premesis.
-the common duty of care states than occupier owes a duty of care to non-lawful visitors in certain situations.

Question 2

what is an occupier ?

Answer 2

• an occupier is someone who has ‘occupational control’ over the premisis. They need not to be the only owner or physical occupier (wheat v lacon)

Question 3

what is a premises?

Answer 3

-a premises must be present,defined under s1(3)(a) as ‘any fixed or moveable structure’which has been meant to include ladders and scaffolding, along with fixed structures

Question 4

what is a tresspasser?

Answer 4

-must be proved the c is a tresspasser
-a tresspasser is someone who enters a property without permission; either the presence is unknown or objected by the occupier in some practicial fashion, like a sign (addie v dumbreck)
-also if you go beyond the point of permission you become a tresspasser (the calgarth)

Question 5

establish the occupier breached their duty ?

Answer 5

-must establish the occupier breached their duty
-the duty owed to a tresspasser is to take care as in reasonable in all circumstances of the case to see the other does not suffer injury on premises by reason of danger concerned

Question 6

To when the tresspasser is owed a duty of care?

Answer 6

-s1(3) OLA 1984
-the critera of a duty is (a) the occupier must be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exsists
-(b) They know a trespasser is in vicinity of danger (young v kent CC)
-(c) the risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection
-In (keown v coventry healthcare NHS trust 2006) it was stated that the danger must come from the state of the building rather than the activities done on it, there was nothing wrong with the fire escape so they were not liable

Question 7

warning signs?

Answer 7

-if the d puts up warning signs it can reduce liability towards the trespasser.
-if someone enters the property recognising the sine of danger they enter zone of danger (tomlinson v congleton BC)
-However in (ratcliff v McConell an occupier is not required to to warn against obvious risks

Question 8

Outro ?

Answer 8

Therefore c could claim/not claim for their injuries under OLA 1984