Week 5

Question 1

Revil v Newbury [1996]

Question 2

Humphreys v Dreamland [1930]

Question 3

Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd [1966]

Answer 3

Established that there can be more than one occupier.

Facts:

Brewer who owned the premises.

Licensed the premises to some publicans.

Held:

Given the facts they were both occupiers for the purposes of the 1957 Act.

Question 4

Harris v Brikenhead Corp [1976]

Answer 4

Physical possession of the premises may not even be necessary in order to be held liable.

Question 5

Wheeler v Copas [1981]

Question 6

Jolley v Sutton [2000]

Question 7

Robson v Hallett [1967]

Question 8

The Carlgarth [1927]

Answer 8

When you invite someone into your house to use the stairs, you do not invite them to slide down the bannisters.

Question 9

Gould v McAuliffe [1941]

Question 10

Laverton v Kiapasha [2002]

Answer 10

Facts:

Customer slipped on wet floor

D had discharged Common Duty of Care by having slip resistant tiles, doormat and a system for mopping up.

Question 11

Pollock v Cahill [2015]

Answer 11

Blind guest who was not aware of a danger that would have been obvious to a guest with sight.

Question 12

Jolley v Sutton [2000]

Answer 12

An abandoned boat on D’s land. Occupiers should not underestimate the ingenuity of children to find ways to cause mischief.

Question 13

Roles v Nathan [1963]

Answer 13

When a householder calls in a specialist to deal with a defective installation, he can reasonably expect the specialist to appreciate and guard against the dangers arising from the defect. The householder is not bound to watch over him to see that he comes to no harm.

Question 14

Ogwo v Taylor [1998]

Answer 14

Facts:

Fireman injured after D negligently started a fire.

Held:

Court allowed recovery as fireman had been injured despite using all care and skill expected of him as a professional.

Question 15

Robert Addie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929]wou