The Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Question 1

Occupier

Answer 1

S1(2) a person who would be treated as such under common law. Occupier has sufficient degree of control over property (Wheat v Lacon)

Question 2

Premises

Answer 2

S1(3)(a) any fixed or moveable structure including any vessels, vehicles or aircraft (Wheeler v Copas)

Question 3

Lawful visitor

Answer 3

S1(2)someone who would at common law have been treated as an invitee or licensee. Express or implied permission to enter.

Question 4

Types of lawful visitor

Answer 4

Invitee-invited to enter premises with express permission to be there. Licensee-person with express/implied permission to be there for a particular time/purpose. Under statue-right to entry under statue. Contractual-permission to be on premises.

Question 5

Standard of duty expected

Answer 5

Adults, children, special visitors

Question 6

Standard of duty expected - adult

Answer 6

S2(2) common duty of care to keep lawful visitor reasonably safe (Laverton v Kiapasha) no duty to keep completely safe

Question 7

Standard oof duty expected - children

Answer 7

S2(3)(a) occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (Mooney Lambeth LBC). Doctrine of allurement (Jolly v Sutton). Occupier should expect children to. Be properly supervised (Phipps v Rochester)

Question 8

Standard of duty expected - special visitor

Answer 8

S(3)(b) occupier must expect specialist. Visitor will be aware/protect themselves against risk in own specialism (Roles v Nathan). Tradesman/independent contractor (Haseldine v Daw)

Question 9

Duty can be discharged

Answer 9

D acted as reasonable man in the same circumstances to keep the visitor safe (Tedstone v Bourne Leisure LTD). S2(4) D may be able to discharge duty by providing reasonable warnings (Woolin v British Calanese)

Question 10

Defences

Answer 10

Independent contractor, contributory negligence, consent, excluding liability

Question 11

Defences - independent contractors

Answer 11

S2(4)(b) - was reasonable to bring an outsider contractor in (Haseldine v Daw). The occupier took reasonable steps to ensure contractor was competent (Bottomly v Todmorden Cricket Club). The occupier took reasonable steps to check work has been done properly (Woodward v Mayor Of Hastings).

Question 12

Defences - contributory negligence

Answer 12

S2(3) - Partial defence. The law reform (contributory negligence act) 1945. Only applies when Cs own behaviour has fallen bellow standard expected of the reasonable man and C contributed to own loss. C contributed to accident (Brandon v Airtours). C made their injuries worse (Froom v Butcher)

Question 13

Defences - consent

Answer 13

S2(5) (Geary v JD Weatherspoon PLC) - C knows there’s a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to that risk (Morris v Murray)
Consent not freely given-C has little choice (Smith v Baker) or C felt a moral obligation (Haynes v Harwood)

Question 14

Defences - excluding liability

Answer 14

S2(1) - clear and visible signs (Ashdown v Samual Williams & Sons ltd). Terms under the unfair contract terms act 1077. 1. S2(1) liability cannot be excluded for death or personal injury of a visitor caused by Ds negligence. 2. Liability for other types of loss caused by negligence can only be excluded if it’s reasonable for the occupier to do so. 3. S1(3)(b) the occupier of business premisis is able to exclude liability for visitors admitted for recreational or educational purpose which is outside the occupiers business.

Question 15

Remedies

Answer 15

A successful C can claim for death and personal injury.S1(3) can claim for damage to property & consequential economic loss.