Trespasser

Question 1

Occupier’s liability is governed by the

Answer 1

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 (non-lawful visitors: trespassers).

Question 2

C may bring an action against D under the

Answer 2

OLA 1984, prompted by British Railways v Herrington which established a duty of common humanity owed to a trespasser.

Question 3

A trespasser is not

Answer 3

defined in the Act, and the common law definition established in Addie v Dumbreck is used someone who goes on land without any sort of permission and whose presence is unknown to the occupier or, if known is objected to.

Question 4

A lawful visitor under the 1957 Act can

Answer 4

become a trespasser when they go beyond their permission.

Question 4

D must be the

Answer 4

occupier, with control of the premise wheat v E. Lacon and co

Question 5

premises must fall within

Answer 5

the very wide definition of fixed or moveable structure following Wheeler v Copas

Question 6

Here, C is a trespasser as they

Answer 6

do not have permission to be on D’s property (Tomlinson v Congleton BC) because

Question 7

Here D is the occupier as they

Answer 7

have control of the

Question 8

Here D is the occupier of premises

Answer 8

as the

Question 9

Under Section 1(1) of the OLA 1984

Answer 9

a duty of care is owed by an occupier to a trespasser in respect of injury caused by a danger due to the state of the premises set out in keown v Coventry NHS Trust.

Question 10

Here C’s injury was caused by a danger due to

Answer 10

the state of D’s premises because

Question 11

Under Section 1(3)

Answer 11

the occupier will only owe a duty of care if 3 conditions are met

Question 12

Firstly D must be

Answer 12

aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists Rhind v Astbury Water Park.

Question 13

Here D was aware of the danger

Answer 13

as

Question 14

Secondly D must have

Answer 14

known or had reasonable grounds to believe that C or any trespasser was in, or may come into the vicinity of the danger - Higgs v Foster there is no duty to an unexpected trespasser.

Question 15

Here D knew that C was in or may come into the building site

Answer 15

because

Question 16

Thirdly

Answer 16

the risk is one against which D may be expected ton offer some protection t c - Ratcliff v McConnell. They do not have to offer protection in respect of obvious danger s. If D has offered all reasonable protection it is unlikely a duty will be owed.

Question 17

Thirdly

Answer 17

the risk is one against which D may be expected ton offer some protection t c - Ratcliff v McConnell. They do not have to offer protection in respect of obvious danger s. If D has offered all reasonable protection it is unlikely a duty will be owed.

Question 18

Here D is/is not expected to

Answer 18

offer protection against the danger because

Question 19

To conclude all 3 conditions are met so

Answer 19

D will owe a duty of care to C

Question 20

Under section 1(4)

Answer 20

the occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent injury to trespassers by reason of the danger concerned

Question 21

This is an objective

Answer 21

test and D’s standard of care will be compared to the reasonable occupier Vaughan v Menlove, Bylth v Birmingham waterworks or reasonably competent professional occupier Bolam v Friern HMC

Question 22

Factors may be considered such as the

Answer 22

degree of the danger and the cost practicality of reducing the risk of harm Tomlinson v Congleton BC and the age of the trespasser especially where there is an allurement Jolly v Sutton)

Question 23

The occupier does not have to offer protection to

Answer 23

adults in respect of obvious dangers as in Ratcliff v McConnell and this may apply to older children Baldaccion v West Wittering

Question 24

The occupier is entitled to expect that

Answer 24

a trespasser will not engage in foolhardy activities or where expertise should make them aware of the danger Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Question 25

Here has fallen below the standard of care of a reasonable occupier

Answer 25

because

Question 26

To conclude D

Answer 26

will