Tort Evaluations 👧🚃 Flashcards
What is the Introduction for evaluating occupiers? 
There are two acts of Parliament - 1957 protect visitors where as 1984 for protects trespassers
How do we evaluate stage one of occupiers?
- that the defendant is an occupier -
establish who has
ownership-Wheat 🌾 V Lacon
And control- Bailey V Arms
fair - as options are available
Unfair - person in control cannot control the state of the land
- Both 1957 and 1984 require a premises-
wide definition - any fixed and movable structure including vehicle 🚗
Unfair - ladder how is it a premises ?
Fair- improve the health and safety
How do we evaluate the rules under occupied liability in 1957 (second stage)
- Must be a duty to keep the claimant Reasonably safe- (Laventon V Kiapasha) 

Only reasonably safe not totally 💯 
Fair- it’s impossible to keep the claimant totally safe
Reasonable- fair
- Owners has no duty of care for obvious harm - fair as claimant had to take some ownership for safety
- Did harm resulted from the state of the land ? (Cole V Davis)
+ separates occupiers from negligence
- Harm must be reasonably foreseeable- (Jolley⛵️ V Sutton)
+ allows consistency across Torts
🚫 subjective
How do we evaluate the third stage of occupiers liability 1957 (how duty can vary)
A) Duty can vary - children 👧 higher (Cooke V Midlands 🚃)
Simkiss V Rhonda - No duty where parent fails to keep child safe
✅ fair- children do not fully understand risks- need to be fully protected
Fair - Simkiss -parents have a legal duty of care for children
B) Varies on professional - (Roles V Nathan ) - duty of care lowered
fair - have a fair understanding of risk
Evaluate the stage where duty come on shifted to independent contactors
Reasonable to give work - (Hasilidine V Daw )
IC must be competent - (Botomley V Todmorton )
Work must be checked - (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings)
+ Fair - no fault of the occupiers - Nothing they could do
Fair - encourages occupiers to do their research and check independent contractors competence 
Evaluate why having trespassers1984 occupiers liability act is good
+ Fair - have to maintain health and safety no one put at risk
Unfair - goes against equitable maxim 
Evaluate the stages for trespasses 
Aware of the risk (Ratcliff V Mcconol)
aware of trespasser (Higgs V Foster)
protection should be offered (Tomlinson V Longlenton)
consider the season(Donlengue V Folkson)
- you need to do something
positive - need to be aware of risks and of trespasser
+ only some protection not
total
Children same duty - keown V conventry
Baldacchino
Unfair - inconsistent
- more likely to trespass due allurement

Evaluate the defences under trespasser 1984 occupies liability
Warning ⚠️ (Rae v Marrs )
complete defence - reasonably safe
Fair - and reasonable suggests safety
Unfair - too easy to escape liability
Volenti consent to risk - Titchna v British rail
Unfair - nothing about risk clear had a knowledge
What is the intro for how Vicarious liability can be fair?
Vicarious liability- employers are liable for the actions employees 
Salmond test - tort must be in course of employment
Evaluate whether the test to see whether they are an employee is fair - Vicarious liability
Employee control (Yewen V Notes 📝)
+ Fair - Acting in the direction of the employer
Integration test (Steveson V McDonald)
+ fair as the relationship shows you are part of the business and accepted
Economic reality test - ready mixed concrete- tax , NI deductions ,tools
uniform method of payment
Akin to employment
VC v Barclays -IC are not employees
Fair - employees have no control or responsibility
Unfair - no compensation claimant deserve
is a problem with the independent contractor died
+ closely connected- VC v Morrisons
+ fair only impose when it’s fair to do so
- Unfair makes law unclear on how it’s applied- A more restrictive approach
- unfair as employees are less accountable
Fair + - A restrictive approach is fair because it already helps businesses that are financially struggling from excessive claims
Unfair- unconnected to work ?no Claim
How do we evaluate in course of employment - Vicarious liability?
Acting against orders ( Limpus V London) (Rose V Plenty)
Unfair - as employers told them not to
Fair - employees will always miss behave it’s the employers job to control
careless act - (Century insurance V NI Transport )
Fair - employers job to train and educate
unfair - employees should’ve known better and it’s hard to prevent careless act - how ?
Paid travel time (Smith V Stages)
+ Fair - employer benefits from work (Rose V Plenty )
+ doing work at the time
Closely connected ( Lister V Heley Hall) (Mattis V Pollock) (Mohammad v Morrisons)
Fair - Put on things you can control in job
How do we evaluate not in course of employment - Vicarious liability?
Not liable - frolic of his own - (tortfeasor)
+ fair - employee their own choice outside of job
- Unfair contradicts acting outside of orders
Unauthorised lift (Twains V Beans 🫘)
Unfair - contradicts (Rose v Plenty)
Fair - Only liable if the employer benefits from the work
Outside employment - Beard V London fair - removed from employment
N v Merseyside- unfair - unfair policy decisions
How do we evaluate the general part of vicarious liability?
Unfair - goes against the fault principal - exists in tort 
Deep pocket theory - ICI V Shatwell- If you have money- More likely the fault will be on you
Fair - victims only form of compensation
Employer has insurance
disciplinary processes
raises the standards of safety
Evaluate negligence
we find a duty of care through Robinson if there is obvious or pre-existing analogy of duty of care
Good - avoids the Caparo policy
+ Follows the commonsense approach
+ police 👮♀️ can be liable- good because police need to be accountable
+ lack of funding for a massive amount of cases
Evaluate breach under negligence
First need to go through the reasonable man test (Blyth V Bathwater works )
Good - Sets reasonable standards
+ can vary across factors
Bad- What does a reasonable man actually look like? - No clear standard of a reasonable man
- Vary standards of profession and age
Good- knowledge and understanding needs to be taken into consideration
