1984 Flashcards
(20 cards)
1
Q
occupiers liability 1984
A
- only applies to trespassers,
- can apply to lawful visitor’s that have exceeded their permission within a premises,
- same definitions of occupier and premises as are used with the 1957 act,
2
Q
duty of care
A
- under section (1)(a) OLA 1984 a duty applies in respect of people other than visitors (trespassers) for ‘injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them’,
3
Q
2 key hurdles
A
- key hurdles a potential claimant must overcome before he can show that the occupier of the premises owes him a duty under the Act at all,
4
Q
first key hurdle
A
- claim must arise out of a dangerous state of premises rather than the dangerous activities of the claimant himself,
5
Q
second key hurdle
A
- the provision of section 1 (3) OLA 1984, which states an occupier owes a duty in respect of a danger on his premises if:
. he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists,
. he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone else is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger,
. danger is one which, in all circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer protection against,
6
Q
dangerous state of premises
A
- Keown v Coventry NHS trust,
- 11 year old climbed fire escape and fell,
- court of appeal argued child understood danger, it was not the state of the premises,
- but hat the child was doing was the cause of harm so there was no liability,
7
Q
allowances made for children
A
- premises that are not dangerous for adults but are for children,
- Siddorn v Patel,
- Tomlinson v Congleton,
8
Q
Siddorn v Patel
A
- claimant injured falling through a skylight dancing on the roof,
- occupiers were not liable as skylight itself wasn’t dangerous,
- skylight was not unsuitable or unsafe for it’s usual purpose,
9
Q
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
A
- Lake itself was not dangerous,
- activities of claimant were,
10
Q
S.1 (3) OLA 1984
A
- he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists,
- reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had knowledge of the facts which provided grounds for such a belief,
- does not mean ‘ought to have known’,
- Rhind v Astbury water park,
11
Q
Rhind v Astbury waterpark
A
- claimant ignored notice saying no swimming and jumped into a lake, injured by objects below water,
12
Q
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
A
- he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe someone is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of danger,
- dived into a harbour and got injured,
13
Q
Scott v Associated British Ports
A
- train surfing,
- 2 incidents where people lost limbs,
- train company should have anticipated the second incident,
14
Q
how to establish the duty of care exists
A
- danger is one which, in all circumstances, he may be reasonably expected to offer some protection against,
- this will be judged according to the facts on a case - by - case basis,
- once these preliminary considerations have been addressed and assuming the claimant has established these requirements the duty of care will exist,
15
Q
discharging the duty defenses
A
- court will need to consider whether the duty of care has been discharged,
- has the defendant done enough to ensure the trespasser is reasonably safe?
- has the occupier met the standard of the reasonable occupier in similar circumstances?
- in deciding this aspect, court will consider a range of factors,
16
Q
the factors the court will consider when discharging the duty defenses
A
- likelihood of trespass,
- seriousness of injury risked,
- cost and practicality of taking precautions,
- likely age of trespasser,
- common sense and the fact an occupier shouldn’t have to guard against an irresponsible minority,
17
Q
section 1(5) OLA 1984
A
- an occupier of premises discharged their duty to a trespasser:
‘by taking such steps as are reasonable in all circumstances of the case to give warnings of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk’, - Platt v Liverpool city council,
18
Q
Platt v Liverpool city council
A
- claimant, child was killed when derelict building collapsed, defendant was not liable as there was nothing more they could do, building secured with 8 foot metal fence,
19
Q
other defences
A
- any warning sign must be sufficiently clear to ensure that the risk is obvious,
- it was decided the warnings prohibiting swimming in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough council were sufficient,
- contributory negligence - applies to 1984 act,
- volenti non fit - under section 1(6) OLA 84 the defence of volenti also applies,
20
Q
remedies
A
- damages will be available to the successful claimant,
- however, under s1(8) OLA 1984 a claimant can only claim for personal injury and death not damage to property,
