Occupiers Liability Case Card

?
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 30-03-17 13:30
Greary v Wetherspoon
slid down a banister in spoons – judge was very dismissive – she oversaw her own actions.
1 of 21
The Calgarth – limits on permission
‘When you invite a person into your house to use the stairway, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters.’
2 of 21
Wheat v Lacon – occupier
has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury.
3 of 21
Harris v Birkenhead – the occupier
local authority was to be regarded as ‘occupier’ – its actions of serving a notice on the tenants requiring them to leave demonstrated ‘sufficient control’. Even empty houses could have an occupier.
4 of 21
Lowery v Walker – the visitor
C injured by ‘a savage beast’ (a horse) when crossing D’s field to access the railway station. C was treated as a visitor -the occupier’s ‘tolerance’ of the repeated trespass gave rise to an implied licence.
5 of 21
Wheeler v Copas – the premises
a ladder was premises under S.1(3)(a) OLA 1957
6 of 21
Darby v National Trust – the common duty of care - no duty in respect to obvious risk
drowned in a National Trust pond. Although it was known that visitors did paddle and swim in the pond, no warning notices had been erected by the pond. No requirement to warn visitors of obvious risks.
7 of 21
Ogwo v Taylor – the occupancy duty vs the activity duty
injury suffered was due to an activity on the premises, the case was dealt with under common law negligence rather than the Act.
8 of 21
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor – the doctrine of ‘allurement’.
A boy (7) died after eating poisonous berries from a plant in a public park. D knew they were alluring.
9 of 21
Jolley v Sutton – the doctrine of ‘allurement’
the law may be more generous to the child claimant. ‘their ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others should never be underestimated’.
10 of 21
Phipps v Rochester – children
The duty is limited by the fact that the occupier is entitled to expect that very young children will usually be supervised by a parent/guardian or other responsible person.
11 of 21
Simkiss v Rhondda – children
girl sliding down a hill - as her father did not consider the area dangerous, it could not therefore be argued that the local authority ought to have realised that the area was dangerous.
12 of 21
Bourne Leisure v Marsden – children
’Small children can disappear in a moment. Holiday sites will almost inevitably contain sources of danger to small unaccompanied children. Further warnings …could not have made any difference.’
13 of 21
Perry v Harris – children
the common duty of care does not require constant supervision of children.
14 of 21
Roles v Nathan – skilled visitors
chimney sweeps – ‘The householder is not bound to watch over him to see that he comes to no harm.’
15 of 21
Bottomley v Todmorden – s.2(4)(b) ensuring contractors to be competent
independent contractors put on a fireworks display, D did not ensure they were competent.
16 of 21
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust – contractors competence
63 year old injured at summer fair – hospital had a duty to check the independent contractor had insurance (where they competent?)
17 of 21
Haseldine v Daw – when will the occupier be required to check the contractor’s work?
lift engineers - Per Scott LJ : ‘Having no technical skill he [the occupier] cannot rely on his own judgement, and the duty of care towards his [visitors] requires him to obtain and follow good technical advice.’
18 of 21
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings – when will the occupier be required to check the contractor’s work?
independent contractor negligently cleared snow from the steps. Here the occupier was under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the work had been done properly.
19 of 21
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council – the duty of care to non-visitors
died in a pond - “… the only risk arose out of what he chose to do and not out of the state of the premises.”
20 of 21
Keown v Coventry Healthcare - the duty of care to non-visitors
11 year old climbed out a fire escape and put himself at risk through his own choice. If there was a danger attributable to the state of the premises, giving rise to a potential duty.
21 of 21

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

‘When you invite a person into your house to use the stairway, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters.’

Back

The Calgarth – limits on permission

Card 3

Front

has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

local authority was to be regarded as ‘occupier’ – its actions of serving a notice on the tenants requiring them to leave demonstrated ‘sufficient control’. Even empty houses could have an occupier.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

C injured by ‘a savage beast’ (a horse) when crossing D’s field to access the railway station. C was treated as a visitor -the occupier’s ‘tolerance’ of the repeated trespass gave rise to an implied licence.

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 Tort Law resources »