- Created by: Sahar
- Created on: 31-01-15 20:52
Occupier: Anyone in control of a land - Wheat (stairs), owner, tenant, independant contractor. Can be more than one occupier
Premises are widely defined- land, buildings, moveable structures, even a ladder- Whealer
Permission can be expressed or implied (police, gas checker, shoppers)
Lowery- but it must be genuine
Rights of way- no liability under s57 or 84- McGeown
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 'visitor'
'Common duty of Care'
Occupier must take extra care for children- not put extra danger or allurements in their way - Glasgow Corporation- poisonous berries. Any foreseeable danger to children regardless of what injury is caused- Jolly v Sutton- boat. Assumed parents should keep control of young children- Phipps- trench
A person carrying out a trade or calling on the occupiers premises must prepare for the risks associated with the trade- Roles- chimney
Occupier will not be liable for damage which is the result of work done by an independant contractor if:a) it is reasonable to entrust the work- Haseldine- lift. b) a reputable contractor is chosen. c) Occupier is not obliged to check the work- Woodward- ice steps
It is possible to avoid liability where: a) adequate warnings are given -Rae- deep pit, does not need to warn against obvious danger- Darby, b) exclusion clauses can be relied on -subject to the Unfairs contract terms Act 1977, c) defence of consent or contributory negligence apply
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 'trespasser'
trespasser- unkown or objected to
A person can enter a land as a visitor and then become a trespasser
Tomlison v CBC- paralysed/lake -state of lake was not dangerous, action of claimant was
a)aware of danger or reasonable grounds to believe it exists, Ratcliff- danger was obvious, pool at night plus signs
b) knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other might or will encounter the danger, Donoghue v Folkstone- D could not have expected anyone to swim in harbour in winter
c) The risk is one against which, in all of the circumstances of the case, they may reasonably expected to offer the other some protection
Courts consider the likelihood of harm, practicality of precausions and potential seriousness of injury
does not cover damage to property