Unit 4.2- Occupiers (Visitors)

Question 1

Wheat v E Lacon

Answer 1

“Occupier” - someone with a sufficient degree of control over the land (can include non-owners, contractors, can be multiple people)

Question 2

Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 2

If the claimant is injured due to naturally occurring features, his injuries will not be due to the “state of the premises”

Question 3

Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Answer 3

If a danger is an allurement (eg. Berries) the occupier needs to take greater care

Question 4

Phipps v Rochester

Answer 4

Where a young child can be expected to be accompanied by an adult, occupiers duty is to the standard needed to protect an accompanied child (parents have a responsibility to accompany their children)

Question 5

Bourne Leisure v Marsden

Answer 5

Where danger is very obvious to parents of a young child, unlikely that occupier will be held liable (case of fenced off pond)

Question 6

Roles v Nathan

Answer 6

1) where danger is incidental to job of a skilled workman, they can be expected to safeguard against dangers of their profession (lower standard of care owed)
2) adequate warning notice will be sufficient to comply with duty of care

Question 7

Haseldine v Drew

Answer 7

Occupier cannot reasonably be expected to perform checks on work of a technical nature

Question 8

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

Answer 8

Where work is not technical in nature, occupier will be expected to carry out checks as are reasonable

Question 9

Jolley v Sutton - what test for remoteness is applied to occupiers liability?

Answer 9

The wagon mound test - “reasonable foreseeability”

Question 10

White v Blackmore - when is an exclusion clause valid?

Answer 10

An exclusion notice is valid if:

• it is clearly worded
• reasonable steps have been taken to bring it to the attention of the visitor