Occupiers liability - trespassers
- Created by: __Jess
- Created on: 29-11-22 20:34
View mindmap
- Occupiers liability - trespassers
- Duty of care
- Take reasonable care that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger
- Occupier owes a duty of care if
- He is aware of the danger
- He has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger
- He is expected to offer some protection
- Occupier owes a duty of care if
- Take reasonable care that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger
- Adult trespassers
- Occupier will not be liable if trespasser is injured by an obvious danger
- Ratcliff v McConnell
- Time which the accident happens is relevant
- Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
- Occupier doesn't have to spend lots of money making the premises safe
- Tomlinson v Congleton BC
- Occupier not liable if he doesn't expect trespassers
- Higgs v Foster
- Occupier not liable if he wasn't aware of the danger
- Rhind v Astbury Water Park
- Occupier will not be liable if trespasser is injured by an obvious danger
- Child trespassers
- Same approach applies towards child visitors as to adult visitors
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
- Same approach applies towards child visitors as to adult visitors
- Defences
- Contributory negligence
- Consent
- Warning signs
- Westwood v Post Office
- Duty of care
Comments
No comments have yet been made