1957 Act Flashcards
(48 cards)
To what matters does the act apply
an occupier of land owes his lawful visitors a common duty of care as regards to the dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them : S 1(1)
Case for defining who is an occupier
Wheat v Lacon
What was decided in Wheat v Lacon
The HoL held that, in the circumstances, the brewery had retained sufficient control over the upstairs part of the premises to be regarded as occupiers. Although they had granted Mr and Mrs R a licence to occupy the upstairs, they had retained the right to access that part themselves. This meant they could still exercise some control over the state of the premises. They also found that Mr and Mrs R were also occupiers and had sufficient control.
1) There can be more than one occupier of premises; and
2) Where the owner of the premise licenses others to occupy those premises, but retains the right to enter the premise, he or she remains an ‘occupier’ for the purposes of the Act. This is to be contrasted with the situation where the owner grants a tenancy conferring on others exclusive possession of the property.
Where is the definition of premises found
S 1(3)(a) control over nay fixed or moveable structure, including vessels, vechiles or aircraft
Who is owed a duty owed
S 1(2) anyone at common law who would be treated as a invitee or licnesee
When will someone be a visitor
enters with express or implied permission
Case where there was implied permission
Robinson v Hallet:n the facts, the son had committed the offence, because, although he was required to leave, he had not yet become a trespasser, as it had not yet gone past the reasonable amount of time it would take to leave. Therefore, the officer was acting lawfully as he had implied permission.
What can the occupier do tot prevent implied permission
put up a notice excluding lability
In which case was it found that the children were a lincesee because the company had knowledge of them on the land yet done nothing to abate
Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway Co of Ireland:
A railway company owned land which had a turntable on, which they knew children regularly played on. They knew there was a gap in the fence which children used to access the land. When playing on the land, a child’s leg was crushed as the turntable moved. Was the child a vistitor or a trespasser?
It was held the company was laible, because there was implied consent making the child a licensee. The implied consent arose due to the fact no reasonable steps were taken to stop children going onto the land, despite knowledge of them being there.
In which case could implied consent not be found because the company had taken steps to stop trespassers
• Edwards v Railway Executive:
A child climbed through a fence between recreational ground and D’s railway. D knew that children regularly climbed through the fence, and they regularly took steps to mend the fenece to prevent children getting through. The child who climbed through had been warned not to do so by his father and owners of the recreational ground. At first instance, the jury found that he was an implied licensee.
What did Lord Goddard say in regard to repeated trespassers
repeated trespass of itself confers no licence, beacause he does not cover his way is chevaux de frise or post a number of keepers t chase was intruders how is it to be said that he has licensed that which he cannot prevent
Are the courts generous in finding implied licenses
yes this is because of the low standard of care afforded to trespassers
In which case was a licence found despite attempts to warn off
Lowery v Walker
Can an occupier limit their permission
Yes
Which case was a situation given to how permission could be limited
the Calgath: when you invite someone into your house to use the stair case yo do not invite them to slide down the bannister
Which case was permission only extended to recreational use and did not extend to the reckless running across property
Haley v Plymouth CC
Which S deals with duty of care
S 2
What may a duty of care give arise to
a duty of care may give arise to the need to inspect the premises and take reasonable steps remedy any defects of danagers
What S indicated that warning given should allow to be reasonably safe
S 2(4)(a)
Case where college had not assumed responsibility
Risk v Rose Bradford college
Case where there was a duty of care although reduced due to contributory negligence
English Heritage v Taylor
Case where falling from a bridge was an obvious manager
Edwards v Sutton
Case in which risk assessment should have been conducted to fall into reasomabless requirement of S 2(2)
Hall v Holdback Estate
Case where was not reasonable to expect inspection
Ted stone v Borune
