Breach: falling below the standard of care (Act 1957 - Occupiers’ Liability)- FS Flashcards
(12 cards)
What is the test for breach of duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
The test for breach is the same as in general negligence: whether the occupier failed to take reasonable care in all the circumstances, considering the likelihood and magnitude of harm and the cost and practicality of precautions.
How did the case of Tedstone v Bourne clarify what constitutes a breach in occupiers’ liability?
The court held there was no breach because the patch of water that caused the accident had appeared very recently, and the occupier had implemented regular inspections. Minute-by-minute monitoring was not required.
Under Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, when can a warning notice discharge the duty of care?
When, in all the circumstances, the warning is enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises.
What must an adequate warning notice communicate to discharge an occupier’s duty of care?
It must clearly communicate the nature of the danger, its location, and how to avoid it.
In what forms can a warning notice be effectively communicated to visitors?
Warning notices can be given orally, in writing, or visually (e.g., signs or symbols).
Why might a vague sign like “Danger” be considered inadequate as a warning?
Because it fails to identify the specific hazard, its location, or preventative measures, and thus may not enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
: How does the court treat obvious dangers in the context of occupiers’ liability and warnings?
Courts may hold that obvious dangers (e.g., algae on a sea wall) do not require a warning, as in the case of Staples v West Dorset DC.
What is the difference between a warning notice and an exclusion notice in occupiers’ liability?
A warning notice is used to discharge the duty of care, while an exclusion notice seeks to limit or deny liability if the duty has already been breached.
Can a single sign serve as both a warning and an exclusion of liability?
Yes, but it must clearly differentiate the nature of the hazard (warning) from the intent to exclude liability (exclusion clause), and its enforceability may depend on additional factors.
If a visitor ignores a clear and adequate warning, what is the likely outcome in terms of liability?
The occupier is likely to be found to have discharged their duty of care, and not liable for resulting injuries.
What are the legal requirements for an occupier’s warning to be deemed adequate?
The warning must provide specific, accessible information about the risk, be located close to the hazard, and enable a reasonable person to avoid harm.
Why was the occupier in the scenario with “Danger” signs on a slippery staircase found to be in breach of duty?
Because the warning was inadequate, lacking specifics about the danger, and how to avoid it, thus failing to meet the standard required to discharge the duty of care.
