Occupiers' Liability

?
Revill v Newbery (1996)
D shot the trespasser (C) and was not liable in OL because the harm was not due to danger of the land. He was liable in negligence, with CN reduction of 75%
1 of 32
Wheat v Lacon (1966)
A definition of who an occupier is - can be a manager - c fell down stairs.
2 of 32
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)
If the local authority has seized a building, they have become the occupiers, so the d was liable for the little girl who fell out the window.
3 of 32
Horton v Jackson (1966)
The sign had prevented many other people incurring harm, so there was sufficient warning of harm.
4 of 32
Darby v National Trust (2001)
Drowning is an obvious risk of swimming, so there was sufficient warning of harm without a sign.
5 of 32
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
Poisonous berries in reach of children made the park not reasonably safe for children of the c's age so breached OLA 57 s (3) (a)
6 of 32
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)
An occupier can assume very young children will have some supervision from parents. Because of this, the small 5 yo who fell down a trench was not compensated.
7 of 32
Simkiss v Rhondda BC (1983)
A D s never held to a higher standard than the parents. The parent had considered the slope safe enough so the D was not liable for the injuries of the child.
8 of 32
Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000)
The boat was allurement to a kid of that age so the D was liable.
9 of 32
Roles v Nathan (1963)
The claimants consciously ignored a warning they had been given, so they were liable for themselves. O can expect contractor to safegaurd under S2(3)(b) OLA 57
10 of 32
General Cleaning Contractor v Christmas (1953)
A window cleaner should be able to safegaurd against defective windows under OLA 57 s2(3)(b)
11 of 32
Haselline v Daw (1941)
Job was technical and the firm was competent so the defendant had no obligation to check the work.
12 of 32
Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings (1945)
no technical knowledge is needed to check that a step is not icy, so the occupier was liable.
13 of 32
Gwillian v W Hertfordshire NHS Trust (2002)
s2(2)(b) OLA 57 could not be used, checking policy requirements was unreasonable and checking insurance is sufficient. Regarding negligent set up of a 'splat' wall at a fundraiser.
14 of 32
Bottomley v Todmorden cricket Club (2003)
The occupier did not do enough to check the insurance of the IC who were putting on the pyrotechnics display. They were liable for the damage.
15 of 32
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
The claimant became a trespasser when he entered lake, which was restricted. His head injuries were not compensated. The sign also fulfilled teh duty to a trespasser.
16 of 32
Addie v Dumbreck Collieries (1929)
Decided before OLA 84 under the provision that the Occupier's duty was not to intentionally injure the trespasser. The girl could not claim compensation for injury due to condition of the land, even though the occupier knew children played there.
17 of 32
British Railways v Herrington (1972)
Overruled Addie v Dumbreck by establishing a duty of humanity. This prompted law reform. Boy got electrocuted on a railway track.
18 of 32
Keown v Coventry Health Care Trust (2006)
Premises were not dangerous unless you were climbing on the outside of the fire escape.
19 of 32
Donoghue v Folkstone properties Ltd (2003)
No liability as D could not have known that people would have been diving off his slipway at night in winter. Did not fulfil OLA 84 s1(3)
20 of 32
Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)
D would not have guessed that the student would swim in the pool out of hours, and it wasn't dangerous unless you did it in the dark.
21 of 32
Rae v Mars (Uk) Ltd (1990)
There was no warning and no barrier and the pit was so close to the entrance that the occupier could not be excluded under OLA 57 s 2(4)(1)
22 of 32
Cotton v Derbyshire Dales DC (1994)
No need to warn against obvious dangers like walking on the edge of a cliff - especially when drunk.
23 of 32
Young v Kent County Council (2005)
CN was allowed. Coucnil should have fixed the school roof, but the children should not have been playing there.
24 of 32
Titchener v British Railway Board (1983)
A 15 yo crossing a train track has accepted the potential risks. Volenti non fit injuria
25 of 32
Lowery v Walker (1911)
Villagers were in the habit of using the occupier's land and he made no real effort to stop them, so had given them implied permission so was liable for injuries caused by a newly purchased, wild horse.
26 of 32
Robson v Hallet (1967)
You have implied permission to walk to someone's front door and away from it in the event of them telling you to leave. This case involved a policeman who was attacked on his way off of the premises.
27 of 32
Pearson v Coleman Brothers (1948)
The girl crossed an area limit for where she was allowed when she went into the bear enclosure at the circus.
28 of 32
The Calgarth (1927)
The C were outside of the purpose of their presence. No liability on the D.
29 of 32
Moloney v Lambeth Borough Council (1966)
Barriers that protected adults would not protect children and they are less careful. It was foreseeable that children may use the stairs, so there was liability.
30 of 32
Scott and Swainger v Associated British Ports
The claimants were aware of the risks of train surfing.
31 of 32
Platt v Liverpool City Council (1997)
Although they had a duty to protect trespassers from the derelict building, barring and putting metal on the windows was sufficient. No breach = no liability.
32 of 32

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

A definition of who an occupier is - can be a manager - c fell down stairs.

Back

Wheat v Lacon (1966)

Card 3

Front

If the local authority has seized a building, they have become the occupiers, so the d was liable for the little girl who fell out the window.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The sign had prevented many other people incurring harm, so there was sufficient warning of harm.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Drowning is an obvious risk of swimming, so there was sufficient warning of harm without a sign.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »