Tort - Occupier's Liability Cases Flashcards
Wheat v E Lacon
OL - Definition of occupier
Brewer - employed couple to manage premises; held that managers were occupiers.
“An occupier is anyone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises; it can include someone other than the owner, multiple individuals, or an independent contractor working on another’s premises if he has the required degree of control over the area (question of degree).
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
OL - Special visitors - s2(3)(a)
Botanic gardens - berries
Additional precautions must be taken to protect visitors - especially children - from concealed dangers and dangerous allurements.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
OL - Special visitors - s2(3)(a)
5 yr old + 7 yr old sister - unaccompanied - fell in trench
Where it is expected for a child to be accompanied, the occupier will be entitled to assume that parents would accompany children to certain locations and not allow them to be alone (and therefore take the precautions appropriate in this context).
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Madsen
OL - Special visitors - s2(3)(a)
2.5 yr old boy - leisure park - pond
Occupiers will not be liable where the danger is so obvious and an obvious feature of the premises; i.e. the danger is clear and known to parents, while there is little occupiers can be expected to do to completely remove the danger.
Roles v Nathan
OL - Special visitors - s2(3)(b)
Chimney sweeps
Occupiers can expect skilled visitors to appreciate and safeguard against any special risks associated with their work on the premises.
Haseldine v Daw
OL - Independent contractor - s2(4)(b)
Faulty lift surveyed by technicians
Where work is of a technical nature and cannot be reasonably checked by the occupier, occupier will have discharged his duty by entrusting the work of the contract without checking himself.
Repairers will be considered manufacturers for the purpose of a claim in negligence for defective products.
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
OL - Independent contractor - s2(4)(b)
De-icers - school staircase; held not to be technical work
Where work is not of a technical nature, the occupier will only discharge his duty if he checks the contractor’s work, because such a check would have clearly uncovered any defect.
White v Blackmore
OL - exclusion of liability
Jalopy car race
For consent to be valid, the individual must have consented to the risk associated with D’s negligence.
Robert Addie v Dumbreck
OL - Trespasser - Definition
A trespasser is one who goes on land without invitation and whose presence is either unknown to the occupier or, if known, objected to.
Thomlinson v Congleton
OL - Trespasser - Consent
C dived into lake - tetraplegic
Trespasser must have suffered loss due to state of premises; natural occurring events will not be attributed to the state of the premises and an occupier will not be liable for it (i.e. shallow lake).
Rhind v Astbury Park Ltd
OL - Trespassers - Duty of care
Fibreglass container in lake
An occupier owes a duty if he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists; where there are no reasonable grounds to believe it exists and he is not aware of it, no duty will be owed.
An occupier will not have a duty to carry out an inspection of the premises to ensure no danger exists where danger is not apparent to an ordinary observer.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
OL - Trespassers - Duty of care
Folkestone Harbour - dived into water - submerged object - tetraplegic; held no duty as not summer
An occupier owes a duty if he knew/has reasonable grounds to believe trespassers are/may come into vicinity of danger; factors such as season will be considered.
Simonds v Isle of Wight Council
OL - Trespassers - Duty of care
Child on swings
An occupier owes a duty of care if the risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer a trespasser some protection; consider nature and extent of risk, type of trespasser, and cost and practicality of solutions.
A duty will not be imposed where it is unreasonable to do so; courts will consider the prohibitive costs of doing so and the public policy implications.
Revill v Newburry
OL - Trespassers - Illegality
D fired shotgun to frighten trespassers - shot one; held that OLA 1984 didn’t apply as injury was not due to state of premises.
Where the trespass is for a criminal purpose, the court may thwart Parliament’s intention to provide protection (but common law negligence will still apply).
