Occupiers Liability

Two Occupiers Liability Acts and what they cover
OLA 1957 - Lawful visitors, OLA 1984 - Trespassers
1 of 32
What does occupiers liability do?
Balances the right of the occupier to use their land as they wish against the need to protect the people who visit the land from injury
2 of 32
What is a premises?
Any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft
3 of 32
Cases: Occupiers Liability can only cover injuries that have happened as a result of the premises, rather than any activity done on the premises
Ogwo v Taylor - boiler
4 of 32
Case: The control test in deciding who is the occupier, and therefore who is liable
Wheat v Bacon - person who has sufficient degree of control over the premises, can have two occupiers, half and half
5 of 32
OLA 1957: Main changes
Encapsulated contractual entrants, invitees and licensees under one heading, and they were all owed the common duty of care, ensure the visitor was safe when visiting the land
6 of 32
Case: Defendant is required to take reasonable measures to prevent the harm to the visitor
Simms v Leigh RFC - wall
7 of 32
Case: Occupier only has to take precautions against identifiable risks
Clare v Perry - jumping over fence
8 of 32
3 Factors to determine what type of entrant, and so if you can convert your status
Purpose, in lecture theatre for study, Temporal, only allowed for certain period of time, Spatial, only allows in lecture teeter but not media room
9 of 32
Case: Converting your status
Tomlinson v Congleton - diving in lake - went from purposeful to trespasser
10 of 32
Case: If technical issue on property, occupier can allow independent contractor to ensure it was safe
Haseldine v Daw - lifts In flats
11 of 32
Case: Does Have to be a technical matter
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings - snow on steps
12 of 32
Case : You still have to check the work
Thomson v Cremin - beam on a ship
13 of 32
s. 2 (4) (b)
Occupier must have acted reasonably, and taken such steps in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and the work had been properly done
14 of 32
Case: Must distinguish technical jobs from ordinary jobs
Wells v Cooper
15 of 32
s. 2 (1)
Occupiers can restrict, modify, or exclude his duty to any visitors
16 of 32
Case: Some duties are so obvious that you don't have to warn against them
Darby v National Trust - Swimming was an obvious danger
17 of 32
Other factors about warnings
Warning must have a sufficient level of detail to warn about the particular danger, you cannot exclude your duty to lawful visitors e.g. policemen, they are obliged by law to enter the premises
18 of 32
Case: Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less care than adults, and their age and intelligence must be taken into account
Cooke V Midlan GWR of Ireland
19 of 32
Case: Parents cannot shift the burden of their children to the occupier
Phipps v Rochester
20 of 32
Case: Those who have a special skill know the risks inherent in their trade and are owed a lower standard of care
Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors
21 of 32
Meaning of res ipsa loquitur
The thing "speaks for itself" the defendant had been negligent without the claimant needing to prove proof of such negligence
22 of 32
Case: Establishment of res ipsa loquitur
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co - sugar bags
23 of 32
Three criteria for the maxim to be in effect
Occurrence does not regularly happen, defendant must have control of the thing which causes him harm, the cause of the occurrence must be unknown to the claimant
24 of 32
Cases: Old trespassers rules
Addie v Dumbreck - they entered at their own risk, Bird v Holbrook - only liability if the occupier went out of their way to cause harm
25 of 32
Case: Children having an implied license
Glasgow Corp v Taylor - an allurement on the premises gave children an implied license
26 of 32
Case: Duty of common humanity
Herrington - if occupiers knew there was a danger on the land, and knew the trespassers were in the vicinity of that danger, then if they can offer protection, they should
27 of 32
s. 1 (4) OLA 1984
must take reasonable care to ensure the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by the danger concerned
28 of 32
There stage test for trespassers duty
Did the defendant have knowledge/ foresight of the danger? Did the defendant have knowledge/foresight of the trespassers? Was there reasonable expectation for protection? i.e. signs
29 of 32
Whats covered under OLA 1984?
Death and personal injury, not property
30 of 32
Case: If the trespasser was aware of the danger, they cannot sue
Tictchener v British Railways Board - 15 year old
31 of 32
Case: Contributory negligence lessening the damages
Ratliff v Mocconell - breaking into the pool
32 of 32

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What does occupiers liability do?

Back

Balances the right of the occupier to use their land as they wish against the need to protect the people who visit the land from injury

Card 3

Front

What is a premises?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Cases: Occupiers Liability can only cover injuries that have happened as a result of the premises, rather than any activity done on the premises

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Case: The control test in deciding who is the occupier, and therefore who is liable

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »