OLA 1957 Flashcards
What acts Is occupiers governed by
OLA 1957 lawful visitors and the OLA 1984 trespasser
C may bring an action under the
OLA 1957
Under 1(2) C must be lawful visitor on D’s premises.
They must have either express permission through being an invited or have contractual permission such as having a ticket for an event. C may have implied permission through being a licences who has entered premises for a long time without complaint Lowery v Walker or delivery maker such as the postman. Or C may have a legal right of entry such as a police officer with a warrant or gas meter reader.
D must be the occupier
With control of the premises as in Wheat v E Lacon and Co.
Premise must fall within the very wide definition under
S1(3)(a) any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft and could even include a ladder wheeler v Copas
What section does D owe C a common duty of care
Section 2(1)
Under section 2(2)
D must take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited Laverton v Kiapasha
D must take reasonable precaution to keep c
reasonably not completely safe and will be compared to the reasonable occupier vaughan v menlove blyth v birmingham water works or reasonably competent professional occupier Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
However C is a child
and under Section 2(3)(a) D must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults Perry v Butlins Holiday World
a child is more
at risk than an adult so D’s standard of care will be judged subjectively and will be higher Moloney v Lambeth BC
D must guard against the risk of allurement
as in Glasgow corporation v Taylor. If there is an allurement there will only be liability if the injury was reasonably foreseeable Jolley v Sutton, without previous warnings and the mere existence of an a allurement is not enough for liability Liddle v Yorkshire
very young children must be
supervised by their parents phipps v rochester
under section 2(3)(b)
d can expect that a skilled visitor when carrying out work will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to it as in Roles v Nathan This does not apply to rescuers such as firemen as in Ogwo v Taylor
under what section my d be able to pass liability
section 2(4)(b) D amy be able to pass liability on to Z as an independent contractor because the state of the premises was due to Z as in Ferguson v Welsh
D must show that they (a)
took reasonable steps to check that z was competent Bottomely v Todmorden Cricket club that is was (b) reasonable to have given the work to Z and that they (c) checked that any non-technical work had been properly done Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, Haseldine v Daw. There is no duty to check technical work
