WS 8 - Occupiers' Liability (1984) Flashcards
Stages in analysing a problem question on occupiers’ liability to trespassers.
STEP 1: State: “Under OLA 1984, an occupier may owe a Trespasser a duty of care in certain situations”
STEP 2: Does D owe C a DUTY OF CARE? C must show that:
STEP 3: Has C breached the duty of care?
STEP 4: Did D’s breach CAUSE C’s harm?
STEP 5: Consider DEFENCES that may be available to D
STEP 6: CONCLUDE: Explain the liability of the occupier to the trespasser.
What must C show to demonstrate D owed DoC?
1) D is an occupier
2) C is a trespasser
3) C’s loss was due to state of premises
AND, per s.1(3)
s. 1(1)(a) OLA 1984
Trespasser = A person “other than a visitor”
Robert Addie v Dumbreck
One who goes upon land without invitation and whose presence is either unknown to the occupier, or if known, practically objected to.
Tomlinson v Congleton
If C is injured due to naturally occurring features, his injuries will NOT have been due to “the state of the premises”
s.1(8) OLA 1984
C may only claim for damages for injury (not property damage)
s.1(3) OLA 1984
1) Occupier is aware of danger/has reasonable grounds to believe it exists [Rhind v Astbury]
2) Occupier knows/has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is/may come in the vicinity of danger [Donoghue v Folkestone]
3) risk is one against which occupier may reasonably be expected to offer trespasser some protection.
Rhind v Astbury
no reasonable grounds for O to believe there was an obstruction to the lake - no duty of care owed.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
man dived into water and hit head on pole; as it was on a winter’s night, there was no reasonable grounds to believe anyone would be in the vicinity of danger.
When considering whether the risk is one against which the occupier might reasonably be expected to offer trespasser some protection; which factors?
Nature and extent of risk
type of trespasser
cost and pract of solutions
Grimes v Hawkins
Swimming pool was not inherently dangerous and the injury was caused by the claimant’s actions, not the state of the premises. The Defendant was not required to adopt a paternalistic approach to his visitors, all of whom were adults, all of whom were making choices about their behaviour, exercising their free will.
When considering whether the risk is one against which the occupier might reasonably be expected to offer trespasser some protection; which factors?
Nature and extent of risk
type of trespasser
cost and pract of solutions
Grimes v Hawkins
Swimming pool was not inherently dangerous and the injury was caused by the claimant’s actions, not the state of the premises. The Defendant was not required to adopt a paternalistic approach to his visitors, all of whom were adults, all of whom were making choices about their behaviour, exercising their free will.
s.1(4) OLA 1984
Standard - take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances.
Children?
same as 1957 Act - See Glasgow Corp, Bourne Leisure and Phipps.
