Week 16: Occupiers' Liability Flashcards
What must a pursuer prove in an occupiers’ liability case in Scotland?
In occupiers’ liability, proof of negligence is required, but if negligence cannot be proven directly, the pursuer may rely on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to infer liability under the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960.
What legal principle was applied in McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Co Ltd (2000)?
In McDyer v Celtic FC, the court applied Res Ipsa Loquitur when a lump of timber fell on the pursuer in a stadium where only the defender’s contractors had access, meaning the incident created an inference of fault that the defenders could not rebut.
What does the legal doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur mean in negligence cases?
Res Ipsa Loquitur means “the facts speak for themselves”—if an accident is of a type that usually doesn’t happen without negligence, and the defendant had control, then negligence may be inferred.
What were the facts and outcome in Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks (1865)?
In Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks, the court held that when bags of sugar fell from a crane and injured the claimant, the type of accident suggested negligence, and as the defendant couldn’t explain how it happened, liability was established under Res Ipsa Loquitur.
What are the 3 elements required for Res Ipsa Loquitur to apply in a negligence case?
For Res Ipsa Loquitur to apply: (1) the defender had sole control of the thing causing harm; (2) the incident wouldn’t normally occur if proper care was taken; (3) the defender offers no explanation.
What was decided in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] regarding slipping on yoghurt?
In Ward v Tesco, the court applied Res Ipsa Loquitur because the area was under Tesco’s control, and yoghurt on the floor was something that shouldn’t be there if reasonable care had been taken, so Tesco had to prove they weren’t negligent.
Why did the claim fail in Dobson v Asda Stores Ltd [2002]?
In Dobson v Asda, the court found that although the claimant slipped on cherries, Asda had a rigorous cleaning regime and no slip mat was necessary, so Res Ipsa Loquitur did not apply and the case failed.
What issue did David T Morrison & Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd (2013) address in relation to negligence?
In David T Morrison v ICL Plastics, the issue was whether the pursuer knew or ought to have known with reasonable diligence that the damage was caused by breach of duty, tying into the requirement to prove causal connection in negligence.
Who is considered an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?
An occupier is “a person occupying or having control of land or other premises” per OL(S)A 1960, s1(1), and includes “any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft” under s1(3)(a).
What did the court decide in McDyer v Celtic Football and Athletic Co Ltd (2000) about occupiers’ control?
In McDyer v Celtic FC, the court found that the defenders had legal control over the premises where a timber fell and injured the pursuer, making them occupiers liable under the Act.
What was the outcome in Dawson v Page (2003) regarding occupiers and visitor risk?
In Dawson v Page, the court held that although the delivery driver slipped on wet planks, the risk was reasonably foreseeable and acceptable, and the occupier did not need to exclude all access as the pursuer had safely crossed twice before.
Can an occupier be liable for the intentional acts of trespassers, as seen in Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987)?
In Maloco v Littlewoods, the House of Lords held that occupiers are generally not liable for the actions of trespassers (like vandals starting a fire), especially where there was no prior knowledge of similar risks.
What legal principle was established in Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987) regarding duty to neighbouring properties?
The court decided in Maloco v Littlewoods that duty of care to adjoining properties for acts of trespassers will only arise in rare cases and depends on foreseeability and prior knowledge.
What is the occupier’s duty of care under section 1(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?
The occupier’s duty of care under s1(1) is to show reasonable care towards persons entering the premises in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or anything done or omitted for which the occupier is legally responsible.
Does the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 place a positive duty on the occupier?
Yes, the Act places a positive duty on occupiers to take reasonable care for visitors’ safety.
Who bears the burden of proof in an occupiers’ liability case?
The burden of proof is on the pursuer to show that the occupier failed in their duty of care.
What was the outcome in Titchener v British Railways Board (1984) regarding occupier liability?
In Titchener v British Railways Board, the court held that the occupier was not liable because the pursuer had voluntarily accepted the risk by knowingly trespassing through a broken fence and onto the railway line.
What is the extent of the duty owed by an occupier under s2(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?
The extent of the duty under s2(1) is to take reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent injury or damage from dangers due to the state of the premises or anything done or omitted.
Is an occupier required to completely eliminate danger under the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960?
No, the duty is not to eliminate danger entirely but to take reasonable steps based on the situation.
What was decided in McGuffie v Forth Valley Health Board (1991) regarding snow removal?
In McGuffie v Forth Valley Health Board, the court held there was no liability because the pursuer failed to show what reasonable steps should have been taken to remove the snow.
What was the outcome in Porter v Strathclyde Regional Council (1991) where the pursuer slipped on food?
In Porter v Strathclyde Regional Council, the court found the defenders liable for not having a proper cleaning system, but contributory negligence by the pursuer was also a factor.
What does ‘reasonable care’ mean in the context of dangers under Occupiers’ Liability?
‘Reasonable care’ means taking into account the circumstances of the incident and assessing whether a danger required precautionary steps.
What did the court decide in Taylor v Glasgow Corporation (1922) regarding a child eating poisonous berries?
What did the court decide in Taylor v Glasgow Corporation (1922) regarding a child eating poisonous berries?
Is there a duty to take extra steps in relation to obvious natural dangers?
No, there is generally no duty to take extra steps for obvious dangers from natural features, unless there are special or hidden risks.
What was the legal outcome in Tomlinson v Congleton (2004) where the claimant injured himself diving into a lake?
In Tomlinson v Congleton, the council was not liable because the danger was obvious, and the claimant voluntarily took the risk.
What did the court decide in Michael Leonard v Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority (2014)?
In Leonard v Loch Lomond, the court held the steep hill posed an obvious natural risk and there was no breach of duty by the park authority.
Why was the National Trust not liable in McKevitt v National Trust for Scotland (2018) when a woman tripped over a stone?
In McKevitt v National Trust, the court found the stone was an obvious natural feature, and human error didn’t create liability where the risk was visible.
What does the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 say about willingly accepted risks?
Section 2(3) of the 1960 Act states that occupiers are not liable for risks willingly accepted by a person entering the premises, based on the same principles as volenti non fit injuria.
What does volenti non fit injuria mean and how was it applied in Titchener v British Railways Board?
Volenti non fit injuria means “to a willing person, it is not a wrong.” In Titchener, the court found the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of walking on the railway, so no liability arose.
What is contributory negligence and how was it applied in Taylor Neilson Barratt v Spice Lounge (Scotland) Ltd (2017)?
Contributory negligence is a partial defence where the pursuer is partly at fault. In Taylor Neilson Barratt, the restaurant was liable, but the claimant was partly responsible for walking in an unsafe area.
What happens when contributory negligence is established by the defender?
When contributory negligence is established, the defender’s liability is reduced based on the pursuer’s share of fault for the injury.
