The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 & 1984 Flashcards
What is meant by “Occupier’s liability” and what is the scope?
The responsibility of a person to right defective works on a premises. Focuses on the condition of the premises, not the ongoing activity - negligence law.
Explain the legal term “Premises”.
Premises are buildings or structures that are able to be occupied. This includes “Fixed” premises such as buildings and construction sites, as well as “Moveable” premises such as scaffolding, cars etc.
With the relevant case law, explain who the “Occupier” is for OLA law.
An occupier is a person/ persons that have control over the activities in a premises. This does not have to be the owner, but includes anyone who can control what goes on. The Wheat v Lacon case helps to interpret this and explains how a premises can have multiple occupiers.
Describe the Wheat v Lacon case.
- Wheat family stayed at a pub with attached rooms.
- The brewery owned the rooms. They also had a tenant running the business.
- The lightbulb at the top of the stairs had been removed.
- Mr.Wheat descended the stairwell in the pitch black andmissed a step due to a shortened hand rail. He hit his head and died.
- Wheat family sued them for joint liability.
- outcome was that they were both liable as they both had control over fixing the lightbulb/ handrail.
Using case law, describe the level of cared needed for the OLA 1957
The law does not expect perfection but does expect the level of care to be reasonable. The Ward V Hereford case helps to interpret this. The wall mentioned in this case was a common wall and structurally sound, therefore it needed no extra work on it to ensure it was safe enough to be in a child’s play ground.
Describe the Ward v Hereford case.
- Mother drops son off at school playground with little supervision.
- Son ends up tripping and hitting his head on a wall.
- Mother sued school for occupiers liability over the condition of the wall.
- Lord denning concluded that the wall was a common wall and the he condition of it was sound.
Explain the importance of the Heseldine V Daw case.
This case helped to interpret the differentiation between a negligence action and an occupier’s liability action.
The owner of some apartments employed a contractor to complete some works on a lift. After the contractor was finished, Heseldine used the lift when it fell, seriously injuring him.
If the claimant were to sue for negligence, the contractor could be the one to be sued due to improper repair. If the claimant were to sue for Occupiers liability, then the responsibility of the owner to employ a competent contractor could be considered.
What is meant by the term ”lawful visitor”?
A lawful visitor is someone who enters a premises after being given express permission or implied permission.
Explain the difference between Express and Implied visitors.
An Express visitor is someone who has been provided express permission such as an invitation to enter a premises, whereas an implied visitor is someone who has been given implied permission to enter a property such as an open shop door.
Explain the ability to limit liability by time and space and the impact of the Stone v Taffe case.
To control entry to a premises, time can be controlled. An example of this would be to include a statement advising the premises closes at 7pm. This would mean that anyone who stays on the premises after this time is no longer an invitee. Space can also be controlled. An example of this could include placing a sign on the wall advising “no persons beyond this point”. The Stone v Taffe case helped to better illustrate the importance of providing the right signals. As the pub advised it would close at 10pm, however still served drinks, the pub would still be liable for any visitors due to implied permission.
Discuss the scope of the OLA 1984
The level of control changed with this act. It now extends to non-invitees (Trespassers) as the required standard adopted is “common humanity”.
Explain the approach in the British railways board V Herrington 1973 case.
This case built on the level of care required for the OLA 1984. As children are less appreciative of danger, it was seen that children should be treated differently than adults. This meant that the outcome of the case was based on what a child would assume, considering the broken fence and worn path. Although there were signs put up to deter trespassers, it was seen that a child would not understand the risk as an adult would, therefore making the railway board liable for the child trespasser.
