Law of Tort - Paper 2 (Occupiers Liability; lawful visitors)

Who are the two people that occupiers liability can apply to?

lawful visitors
&
trespassers

1 of 64

What is the act for occupiers liability relating to lawful visitors only?

Occupier's Liability Act 1957

2 of 64

Under OLA 1957, what do occupiers owe and what will also be established and considered?

owe - duty of care to lawful visitors

established - negligence, duty, breach, causation

considered - defences, remedies

3 of 64

What duty does an occupier of premises have in relation to lawful visitors?

a duty to keep lawful visitors safe

4 of 64

What section of OLA 1957 defines an occupier and how is it defined?

s1(2)

a person who would be treated as such under common law

5 of 64

What was shown in Wheat v Lacon as a way to satisfy occupier?

if the defendant has a sufficient degree of control over a property they will be occupiers

6 of 64

Why were the defendants occupiers in the case of Wheat v Lacon?

because even though they employed a manager to live in their pub, they had
reserved the right to enter to do
repairs and so had a sufficient degree of control

7 of 64

How much control is needed and how
many occupiers can there be if each has sufficient control?

very little control

can be more than one occupier

8 of 64

What section of OLA 1957 defines premises and how is it defined, with examples?

s(1)(3)(a)

any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
e.g land and buildings; shed, bridge or scaffolding; a ladder

9 of 64

What section of OLA 1957 defines a lawful visitor and how is it defined?

s1(2)

someone who would in common law have been treated as an invitee or licensee with permission to enter

10 of 64

What are the two ways permission to enter can be expressed?

expressed
OR
implied

11 of 64

What are the four ways as to how permission can be implied?

- repeated visits

- doctrine of allurement

- entry in order to communicate

- statutory powers of entry

12 of 64

How may there be implied permission to enter because of repeated visits?

if the occupier knows or should know that people are repeatedly visiting the premises but does nothing about it

13 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Lowery v Walker?

- villagers habitually took short cut across D's field to train station
- D put wild horse in field with no warning and it attacked C

- court held the villagers had implied permission as D knew of shortcut and did little to discourage its use
- C was a l

14 of 64

When will repeated visits as a way to imply permission to enter not be established?

if the claimant exceeds their permission

15 of 64

What happened in the case of Harvey v Plymouth CC?

- C ran from taxi without paying
- did this across open land at night, tripped over low fence and fell down five foot drop
- C sustained serious head injuries

16 of 64

What was therefore held about repeated visits in the case of Harvey v Plymouth CC?

any implied permission did not extend to reckless and dangerous activities

17 of 64

What does the doctrine of allurement mean?

a child will not be a trespasser if he wanders on to land to investigate something that is both attractive and dangerous to children

18 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Jolley v Sutton LBC?

- an abandoned boat on waste ground was an attraction to children
- the claimant was an injured child and so was a lawful visitor

19 of 64

What is the implied permission allowed in 'entry in order to communicate'?

allowed to walk up to the front path of a house to the front door in order to communicate with the occupants

20 of 64

Who were held to be lawful visitors in 'Robson v Hallett'?

police officer on the front step

21 of 64

Where does entry in order to communicate not extend to and who does it not apply to?

beyond the front door, even if open

any person forbidden entry by a notice on the gate

22 of 64

Who have implied permission because of statutory powers of entry?

meter readers
&
firemen
&
a police officer with a warrant

23 of 64

Even if the occupier objects, will these still be lawful visitors?

yes

24 of 64

Under what section of OLA 1957 does the duty of care owed come from and what kind of duty of care is owed?

s2(2)

a common duty of care

25 of 64

Under this section, what does the occupier owe?

a common duty of care to take such care as in all the circumstances is
reasonable to make sure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using
the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted / invited by the occupier to be there

26 of 64

Who does this duty aim to keep safe and instead of what?

the visitor

rather than the premises

27 of 64

As the duty is to take reasonable care, what are occupiers not expected to guarantee?

the safety of lawful visitors

28 of 64

To avoid liability (discharge of duty), what must the occupier act as to keep the visitor safe?

as the reasonable man would have done in the same circumstances

29 of 64

In the case of 'Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd', what happened and why was the defendant not in breach of duty?

- claimant slipped on pool of water by jacuzzi

- no reasonable system of checking for spillages could have found problem in time before the accident

30 of 64

What section of OLA 1957 is used for discharging duty and how may the defendant discharge his duty under this?

s2(4)

providing reasonable warnings whether implied (e.g fence) or expressed (notices)

31 of 64

What should any notices be and do?

be - visible

do - clearly explain danger

32 of 64

In the case of 'Woollins v British Celanese', why was the defendant in breach of duty?

the notice he put up (warned of dangerous roof) was not visible

33 of 64

Who are the two types of people that are part of variation of duty?

children
&
specialist visitors

34 of 64

Under which section of OLA 1957 does the variation of duty for children come from and what does it state about occupiers?

s2(3)(a)

an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

35 of 64

What happened in Moloney v Lambeth LBC and what was held?

- 4 y/o slipped through banisters on a staircase in a block of flats

- D was in breach of duty as it was foreseeable that small children would be using the staircase
- no defence that gaps in banister were to small for adult to fall through

36 of 64

However, what are occupiers also entitled to expect?

that parents will take appropriate care of their young children

37 of 64

What happened in Phipps v Rochester Corporation and what was held?

- 5 y/o boy (lawful visitor) fell into trench dug by D on D's land

- court held reasonable parents would
not allow child to be put in a dangerous situation without proper supervision + protection; D not in breach of duty

38 of 64

Under which section of OLA 1957 does the variation of duty for specialist visitors come from and what does it state about occupiers?

s2(3)(b)

on occupier may expect that a
specialist visitor will protect himself and be aware of risks within his own specialism

39 of 64

What happened in Roles v Nathan and what was held?

- 2 chimney sweeps died from carbon
monoxide poisoning when cleaning D's heating system
- they were warned of danger

- court held; risk was one they should
have been familiar with and known how to have dealt with so D was not in breach of duty

40 of 64

Which causations must be present (with the cases to establish each and what each means)?

factual (but for test) - Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

legal / remoteness of damage (harm must be reasonably foreseeable) - The Wagon Mound

41 of 64

What are the four defences available for occupiers liability; lawful visitors (with the section of OLA 1957 it comes from)?

1 - s2(4)(b) Independent Contractors

2 - s2(3) Contributory Negligence

3 - s2(5) Consent

4 - s2(1) Excluding Liability

42 of 64

What does defence number 1 (Independent Contractors) mean?

the occupier is not liable if the visitor is injured by something dangerous that was created by faulty workmanship on the part of an outside contractor, provided of three things

43 of 64

What are the three things that need to be provided to satisfy the defence of independent contractors?

- reasonable for the occupier to have brought in an outside contractor
AND
- occupier took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor was competent
AND
- occupier took reasonable steps to
check the work had been properly done

44 of 64

What is a case example for the factor of 'reasonable for the occupier to have brought in an outside contractor'?

Haseldine v Daw

45 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Haseldine v Daw?

- C injured whilst visiting D's premises when lift he was in fell to ground

- D not liable because reasonable person would ask reputable contractor to maintain lift and would not be in position to check the work

46 of 64

What is a case example for the factor of 'occupier took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor was competent'?

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

47 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club?

- D hired stunt team to do firework show
- used gunpowder, petrol, propane gas rather than normal fireworks and used C (unpaid amateur) to carry out show
- C badly burnt after it went wrong and D had no insurance
- D liable as failed to choose safe and co

48 of 64

What is a case example for the factor of 'occupier took reasonable steps to
check the work had been properly done'?

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

49 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Woodward v Mayor of Hastings?

- outside contractor swept snow from school steps
- failed to deal with frozen snow underneath so steps stayed slippery
- C, pupil, fell and got badly hurt

- D liable as reasonable person ought to check whether steps are safe

50 of 64

What does defence number 2 (Contributory Negligence) state?

when considering a claim under OLA 1957, the court should consider both the care and lack of care which would ordinarily be looked for in a visitor

51 of 64

What does defence number 3 (Consent) state?

the defence of consent is available where the visitor consents to the risk of negligence on behalf of the occupier

52 of 64

However, what will a visitor not usually do?

consent to such a risk

53 of 64

What is a case example for the defence of consent in OLA 1957?

Geary v JD Weatherspoon plc

54 of 64

What happened and what was held in the case of Geary v JD Weatherspoon plc?

- C (customer in D's bar) tried to slide down banister of large open staircase
- fell onto marble floor 4 meters below and was seriously hurt

- claim failed as she was aware of obvious risk and chose to take it so D had no duty to protect her

55 of 64

What does defence number 4 (Excluding Liability) mean and how can it be achieved?

on occupier may restrict / exclude altogether the duty of care owed to his visitors

can be done by putting up a sign
saying he does not accept responsibility for the safety of visitors, but it should be clearly worded and visible

56 of 64

What is a case example for the defence of excluding liability?

Ashdown v Saumel Williams & Sons Ltd

57 of 64

What happened in the case of Ashdown
v Saumel Williams & Sons Ltd and what was held?

- C habitually took shortcut across D's railway yard to get to work
- she was hit by trucks that were being shunted negligently

- claim failed as signs clearly stated that people took the shortcut at their own risk

58 of 64

However, which act has modified the law on excluding liability?

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
(UCTA 1977)

59 of 64

Under s2(1) of UCTA 1977 what can liability not be excluded for?

death / personal injury of visitor caused by the defendants negligence

60 of 64

Under s2(2) of UCTA 1977 when can liability for other types of loss caused by negligence only be excluded?

if it is reasonable for the occupier to do so

61 of 64

However, under s1(3)(b) of UCTA 1977 who is the occupier of business premises able to exclude liability for?

visitors admitted for a recreational / educational purpose which is outside the occupier's business

62 of 64

In what cases can a successful claimant claim the remedy of damages for?

death
&
personal injury

63 of 64

Under s1(3) OLA 1957, what can a claimant also claim damages for?

damage to property (including damage to the property of others)

any consequential economic loss resulting from damage to property e.g the costs of recovery

64 of 64

Get Revising

Law of Tort - Paper 2 (Occupiers Liability; lawful visitors)

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: