Occupiers liability

?
  • Created by: Y14
  • Created on: 14-04-21 14:41
The test for deciding whether a person is the occupier is found in case law.
Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd [1966]
1 of 5
courts will find out that no one is in control of the premises.
Bailey v Armes (1999)
2 of 5
The occupier does not have to make the premises completely safe for the visitor,only to do what is reasonable.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme [2002]
3 of 5
What may not pose a threat to an adult may be very dangerous to a child.
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922].
4 of 5
The courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the child should be under supervision of a parent or other adult.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955].
5 of 5

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

courts will find out that no one is in control of the premises.

Back

Bailey v Armes (1999)

Card 3

Front

The occupier does not have to make the premises completely safe for the visitor,only to do what is reasonable.

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What may not pose a threat to an adult may be very dangerous to a child.

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

The courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the child should be under supervision of a parent or other adult.

Back

Preview of the front of card 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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