Tort - Occupiers Liability Flashcards
An occupier is anyone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises
Wheat v Lacon
If danger is an allurement the occupier must do even more to protect a child’s safety
Glasgow Corp. v Taylor
If the occupier makes the premises reasonably safe for young children as accompanied by the sort of guardian that could be expected for a child of that age, they will have complied with their duty of care
Phipps v Rochester Corp.
If the danger makes it obvious that an adult should be present the occupier will not be liable
Bourne Leisure v Marsden
Work of a technical nature cannot be reasonably checked by an occupier
Haseldine v Daw
Work of a non-specialist nature (e.g. checking a step is de-iced) can be reasonably checked by the occupier
Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
A notice is valid if:
1- Clearly worded; and
2- Occupier took reasonable steps to bring it to the visitor’s notice
White v Blackmore
A person ‘other than a visitor’ is someone who goes upon land without invitation and who’s presence is either unknown to the occupier or, if known, practically objected to
Addie v Dumbreck
Injury by naturally occurring features his injuries will not be deemed to have been caused by the state of the premises
Tomlinson v Congleton
Man dived into water and hit head on pole. As it was on a winters night there were no reasonable grounds to believe anyone would be in the vicinity of danger
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
Occupiers are not expected to adopt a paternalistic approach to defendants. Will not be liable for injury caused by actions, not state of premises
Grimes v Hawkes
Successful Volenti defence: C knew there was a risk of injury from diving into a half-drained pool and went on to take that risk
Ratcliff v McConnell
If trespasser entered onto the land for a criminal purpose the court may thward parliaments intention to provide a protection to trespassers
Revill v Newbury
