Occupiers Liability
- Created by: amberjedxo
- Created on: 07-01-19 15:56
View mindmap
- Occupiers Liability Act
- 1957
- Is there an occupier, visitor and premises?
- Occupier - not defined but guidance under Wheat v Lacon
- Doesn't need to be on the property - Harris v Birkenhead corp
- Can be manager or business proprietor
- Visitor- s.2
- can be invitees, licensees, have contractual permission etc
- Premises - s.1(3) Any fixed or moveable structure
- Occupier - not defined but guidance under Wheat v Lacon
- Has the D breached his duty as an occupier?
- Duty to children s.2(3a)- Occupier should prepare for children to take less care than adults and not place any danger in their path
- Glasgow v Taylor- can be liable if aware of allurement
- Phipps v Rochester Corp- parents should watch children
- Take precaution to keep visitor reasonably safe but no more than that
- Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway
- Dean chapter of rochester cathedral v debell
- Not liable for pure accidents- Cole v British Legion
- Liability to tradesmen- s.2(3b) owe common duty but the tradesman should appreciate and guard against any risks
- Roles v Nathan
- 3 stage test
- Reasonable to give to contractor- Haseldine v Dawson
- Contractor is competant- Bottomley v todmorden
- Checked work done- Woodward v Mayor of hastings
- Duty to children s.2(3a)- Occupier should prepare for children to take less care than adults and not place any danger in their path
- Is there an occupier, visitor and premises?
- 1984
- For trespassers/ visitors who have exceeded their permission
- 3 stage
- Aware of danger
- Aware C in vicinity of danger
- Able to offer some protection
- Only claim for personal injury
- 3 stage
- Originally no duty owed- Addie v Dumbreck
- British railway board v herrington - suggested duty of common humanity
- Usually do not find the occupier liable
- Donoghue v Folkestone; Congleton v Tomlinson
- For trespassers/ visitors who have exceeded their permission
- 1957
Comments
No comments have yet been made