1984 Act Flashcards
1984 act
Introduced to provide a limited duty of care towards trespassers
Before occupiers only had to refrain from deliberately or recklessly inflicting damage or injury
Bird v Holbreck (1828)
Ma traps illegal
Occupier reasonable steps for own protection and protection of his property
Addie v Dumbreck (1929)
Children frequently played on colliery premises near to dangerous machinery and were turned away by the owners
.
Brutish railways board v Herrington(1972)
6 year old burned on electrified railway line through vandalised fencing
Railway board regularly repaired it
Practice statement used ‘common duty of humanity’
Limited duty owed to child trespassers
When for occupier knew of the danger and the likelihood of tbe trespass and had the skill, knowledge and resources to avoid an accident
Impracticalities of the act meant that the 1984 act was passed
When the act applies
S1(1)(a) duty applies in respect of people other than visitors who are covered by the 1957 act
S1(1)(a) 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
1984 act is for injury only
Property not covered
Occupier will owe a duty under section 1(3) if;
S1(3)(a) he is aware of the danger or had reasonable grounds to believe it exists
S1(3)(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of danger
S1(3)(c) the risk is one against which, in all circumstances of the case he reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection
Nature of the duty
S1(4) take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent injury to the non visitor by reason of the danger concerned
Nature of the premises, degree of danger practicality of taking precautions and age of the trespasser
Louis Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
Park and lake owned by authority
Warning signs about swimming and diving but ignored
Decided to make inaccessible but ran out of funds
C-18-hit head-paralysis- severe spinal injury
COA s1(3) yes
Allurement
Contributory negligence
HOL
Own choice
reasonable man
Not due to state of premises
Avoiding liability
Warnings
S1(5) such steps as are reasonable in all circumstances
Effective warnings or discouragement from entering
Westwood v the post office (1973)
A notice posted on a motor room door that “only the authorised attendant is permitted to enter”
Was held as sufficient warning for ah intelligent adult
The occupier was not liable
Volenti
S1(6) must appreciate the nature and degree of risk not merely be aware of its existence
Ratcliffe v Mcconnell (1999)
Warning notice at the shallow end of a swimming pool
“Deep end shallow dive”
Claimant knew entry was prohibited at that time
Injured diving his claim failed
He was aware of the risk and accepted
Exclusion of liability
None
Creates minimum standard of care
Trespasser more care then lawful visitor
