Tresspasser
- Created by: Rachael649
- Created on: 14-03-14 10:22
View mindmap
- Tresspasser
- Who is the occupier
- A person who does not own property but is in control of the premises at the time of the incident.
- Occupier will owe a duty if he " is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists, or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of danger.
- A person who does not own property but is in control of the premises at the time of the incident.
- A trespasser can claim where there was a risk of injury due to the state of the premises
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare. A child climbed out of a fire escape to show off to his friends and fell. D was not laible
- Donoghue v Stevenson. Occupier did not owe a duty of care, it was the activity itself that caused the injury.
- Key facts of Donoghue: Claimant injured when trespassing into a slipway in a harbour and dived into the sea.
- Higgs v Foster. Occupier was not liable. The police officer was a trespasser.
- Rhind v Astbury Water park. The occupier was not liable after the claimant ignored a notice stating " Private property, no swimming". The occupier had no reason to know of the dangerous objects.
- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough council
- Key facts: the danger was not due to the state of the premises. It was not the type of risk the occupier should have to safeguard against. The cost and practicality of avoiding the danger was not reasonable to expect of the occupier.
- Local authority owned a park including a lake. Warning signs were posted prohibiting swimming and diving. An 18 year old dived in all struck his head.
- Siddorn v Patel. An occupier was not liable after a tenant decided to dance on a Perspex roof of an adjoining house. The damage was caused by the carelessness of the claimant and not by the state of the premises.
- Defences
- Effective warnings which will warn trespassers of the precise dangers.
- Volenti: the claimant must appreciate the nature and degree of the risk.
- Contributory negligence: where the damages are reduced according to the claimant's responsibility for the damage suffered.
- Defences
- Donoghue v Stevenson. Occupier did not owe a duty of care, it was the activity itself that caused the injury.
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare. A child climbed out of a fire escape to show off to his friends and fell. D was not laible
- Who is the occupier
Comments
No comments have yet been made