1957 Flashcards
why does the law on occupiers’ liability exist?
The law on occupiers’ liability imposes duties on occupiers of land to third parties (i.e., people who are on their land).
In the lecture we covered two Acts.
- Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
- Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
What is the difference between the two Acts?
One covers those on another’s land with permission 1957
and the other covers trespassers 1984
Look at the following list and decide who would come under the 1957 Act and who would fall under the 1984 Act
- A shopper, in JD Sports, in the Bullring during opening hours.
- A shopper in the Bullring who goes under a rope surrounding a Christmas tree. The rope is clearly there to prevent shoppers getting too close to the tree.
- An employee of a gas company entering a building to take a meter reading.
- A policeman entering an office building while on duty.
- A delivery driver dropping a package in an office building at 10am.
- A shopper who goes through a door marked ‘private’ in a shop during opening hours.
- 1957
- 1984
- 1957
- 1957
- 1957
- 1984
1957 - which one of the following is correct when considering occupiers?
a. The occupier is always the person who is physically present on the land.
b. The occupier is always the owner of the land.
c. The occupier is the person in control of the land.
c. The occupier is the person in control of the land.
Wheat v Lacon tells us this. This case also tell us that there can be more than one occupier.
Which one of the following is correct when considering the extent of the duty owed to visitors?
a. An occupier must make sure a visitor is totally safe.
b. An occupier must make sure a visitor is reasonably safe.
c.An occupier must make sure a visitor is not safe at all.
b. An occupier must make sure a visitor is reasonably safe.
Ben, an electrician, is employed to fix broken lighting in an office adjacent to a factory. When he has finished his work, he decides to have a look around, wanders into the factory and is injured by machinery. There is a sign above the factory entrance which states ‘DANGER: No unaccompanied visitors allowed beyond this point’. Ben saw the sign but ignored it.
Q: Is the occupier liable for Ben’s injuries under the 1957 Act?
a. Yes, because he is a visitor, he has been invited into the building to fix a light.
b. No, because he will probably be seen as a trespasser when he went into the factory.
b. No, because he will probably be seen as a trespasser when he went into the factory.
Cunningham v Reading Football Club (Loose masonry thrown at police officers during a football match. Club liable as this type of injury and actions were reasonably foreseeable).
Murphy v Bradford Metropolitan Council (School should have taken more care when clearing snow from a path – claimant fell, suffering personal injuries).
Clare v Perry (Hotel guest decided to exit the hotel via a perimeter fence, rather than the designated exit, the guest sustained injuries due to the 6ft drop the other side of the wall. Hotel was not liable, the guest has been foolish in her choice of exit route, she has deliberately tried to descend the way she did which meant she fell off the wall).
–
Q: Does the law expect visitors to take responsibility for their own safety?
A: Yes, as we have seen, an occupier does not have to provide a risk-free environment and it follows that an occupier is not liable for all injuries. Visitors (and trespassers (see 1984 Act)) should take responsibility for their own safety.
Does the law have a different approach to very young children? and what are the 2 cases?
- Yes, it is reasonable for them to be supervised.
1. Phipps v Rochester Corporation where a corporation was not liable when a 5-year-old boy was injured – it was safe to assume that a reasonable parent would not allow their young child to be unaccompanied in unsafe places.
- Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden where a caravan owner was not held liable when a 2-year-old boy wandered away from his family and drowned in an unfenced pond. It was reasonable to expect parents to supervise their very young children.
Which of the following is correct when considering the duty owed to contractors?
a. An occupier will be unlikely to be liable for job-related injuries to contractors as they are skilled and should be aware of any dangers.
b. An occupier is likely to be liable for job-related injuries to contractors as they are visitors.
a. An occupier will be unlikely to be liable for job-related injuries to contractors as they are skilled and should be aware of any dangers.
