1984 Duty of Care Flashcards
(12 cards)
Narrowly defined danger - s.1(3)(a)
Keown v Coventry NHS
The danger must be broadly defined, the more narrowly defined it is the less likely the occupier should have had reasonable knowledge it exists.
Occupier can be aware of danger and claim may still fail - s.1(3)(a)
Scott v Associated British Ports
If they cannot prove the damage was caused by the defendants breach
What level of danger - s.1(3)(a)
Ovu v London Underground
The stairs were ordinary - There was nothing dangerous about them
“Shut eye knowledge” - s.1(3)(a)
Swain v Prui
D had reasonable grounds to believe it existed.
Reasonable inspection would have revealed hole in the fence but he was not expected to inspect all of it
Does not require malice - s.1(3)(a)
Mine v Express Newspaper
Examples of the occupier knowing someone is on their premises - s.1(3)(b)
Young v Kent
Seeing someone and asking them to leave
Their presence being informed by a responsible third party.
Doctrine of repeated visits and s.1(3)(b)
White v St Albans
Tried to rely on the doctrine but it needed to comply with s.1(3)(c)
There needs to be a high amount of tolerance of the trespassing
Nothing preventing a person from trespassing s.1(3)(b)
Higgs v Foster
Court rejected this argument
Tomlinson v Congleton - s.1(3)(c)
- No particular unexpected hazard
- occupier was completely aware of the danger
- Occupier was aware someone was in the vicinity of danger
- Failed on (c), It was not accepted that it would have been reasonably expected to offer protection
-Lord Hobhouse ‘it is not and should neverb e the policy of the law to require the prtoection of the foolhard or reckless few’
Koewn v Coventry NHS s.1(3)(c)
If they offered protection from a fire escape, then they reasonably should offer protection from falling from drainpipes.
If all three cannot be proven
Donoghue v Folkestone
No duty will arise
