3.4 Occupiers' Liability Flashcards
- Understand an occupier's duty towards lawful visitors as governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 - Understand an occupier's duty towards unlawful trespassers as governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (44 cards)
What act accounts for OL for lawful visitors
OLA 1957
What act accounts for OL for unlawful visitors
OLA 1984
Case for deciding whether a person is the occupier
Wheat v Lacon - Hotel manager not the owner but given right to rent out rooms in his private quarters - paying guest fell down unlit staircase and died - HoL ruled that he was an occupier - so there could be more than one occupier of the premises
What is an occupier
No statutory definition - however it is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there
What if no one is in control of the premises
Then there is no claim
What are premises
No statutory definition, except in S1(3)(a) says ‘any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’
Types of lawful visitor
Adults, children and workmen
What does s 2(1) state
The occupier owes a lawful visitor the common DoC
Types of Adult visitor
Invitees, licensee, those with contractual permission, those given a statutory right of entry (police constables exercising a search warrant)
The common duty of care for a lawful visitor is set out in which section
S2(2)
What is the common duty of care for a lawful visitor
‘take such care as in all circumstances … is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited … to be there
Case authorities for making the premises reasonably safe - NOT COMPLETELY SAFE
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway
Debell v Rochester Cathedral
Court comment in Laverton v Kiapasha
The safety of visitors was not guaranteed, and it was not feasible as the shop had taken reasonable precautions. Customers can be reasonably safe if they take reasonable care for their safety
Special duty for children states what in which section
s 2(3) - Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults … [and as a result] the premises must be safe for a child of that age
How is the standard of care measured for children
higher than adults but measured subjectively, according to the age of the child
What is allurement? Why is this important for an occupier to consider?
Attraction to dangerous items - Occupiers should guard against any kind of allurement or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm
Case authority for allurement
Glasgow v Taylor
If a child is very young, who is the duty of care usually on?
The parent or other adult
How are very young children defined
No definition - subjective for each case
Case authority for very young children
Phipps v Rochester
Special duty for people carrying out a trade states what in which section
s2(3)(b) Expect that a person in the exercise of their calling will ‘appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leave him free to do so
Case authority for tradespeople standard of care
Roles v Nathan
The occupier will not be liable for the work of independent contractors if:
- It is reasonable to give the work to another
- A reputable contractor is used
- If possible, the occupier checks the work has properly been done
Case authorities for Occupiers’ liability for the torts of independent contractors
- Haseldine v Daw
- Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
- Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings
