Breach of the occupier's common duty of care 1957- FS Flashcards
(26 cards)
What is the fourth requirement a claimant must prove under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
That the occupier breached the common duty of care by failing to take reasonable care for the visitor’s safety.
What is the general standard of care under Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
The duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe on the premises for the purpose they are there.
Is the test for breach under the Occupiers’ Liability Act subjective or objective?
It is an objective test, judged against what a reasonable occupier would do in the same circumstances.
What special category of visitor does Section 2(3)(a) address?
Children. It states that an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, and may owe them a higher standard of care.
What is the rationale for a higher standard of care being owed to children?
Because children may be attracted to hidden or dangerous features that adults would typically avoid.
What is an occupier expected to do to protect child visitors from hazards on their premises?
Take reasonable steps, which may include removing dangerous objects, putting up clear warnings, or restricting access.
What case established that occupiers owe a duty to protect children from attractive but dangerous objects?
Jolley v Sutton, where the council failed to remove a derelict boat that attracted children, resulting in serious injury.
What principle was established in Phipps v Rochester Corporation regarding very young children?
That occupiers are entitled to assume parental supervision, and may not be liable if children are harmed while unsupervised.
In what circumstances may an occupier escape liability for harm to children
If the hazard is obvious, and the occupier could reasonably expect the child to be under adult supervision.
Does the higher standard of care to children apply in all cases under the 1957 Act?
Yes, but it is balanced against the assumption of parental responsibility, especially for young children.
Can occupiers be expected to eliminate all risks to children on their premises?
No. The duty is to take reasonable care, not to guarantee absolute safety.
What determines whether the occupier has breached their duty to a child visitor?
Whether the occupier took reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, given the nature of the hazard and the age of the child.
Under the 1957 Act, does the duty owed to children include placing warnings or physically removing dangers?
Yes. Reasonable precautions may involve clear signage, fencing, or removing attractive nuisances.
In summary, what must a claimant show to establish breach by an occupier under the 1957 Act for a child visitor?
That the occupier failed to meet the heightened standard of care expected toward children by not taking reasonable precautions for known or foreseeable dangers, and that this failure caused the loss.
How is the standard of care affected when the visitor has a known vulnerability?
If the occupier is aware of the visitor’s particular vulnerability, they must take reasonable steps to ensure their safety in light of that vulnerability.
Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, what must be established to prove that the occupier breached their duty of care?
That the occupier failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor was reasonably safe for the purpose they were invited or permitted to be on the premises
What case illustrates the heightened standard of care required where an occupier knows the visitor is blind?
The case of Pollock v Cahill, where the court held the occupier liable for failing to protect a blind visitor from hazards on the premises (e.g. open windows).
What is the key principle regarding occupiers’ duty to vulnerable visitors established in Pollock v Cahill?
Occupiers must account for known vulnerabilities and adjust their conduct accordingly to prevent foreseeable harm.
Under Section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, how are skilled visitors treated?
Skilled visitors are owed a lower standard of care, as the occupier is entitled to assume they will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to their work.
What must an occupier reasonably expect a skilled visitor to do when faced with a risk inherent in their profession?
The occupier may expect the skilled visitor to recognise and protect themselves from those risks without further precautions being taken by the occupier.
What principle was confirmed in the case of Roles v Nathan involving chimney sweeps?
Occupiers are not liable for injuries caused by risks incidental to the specialist visitor’s job, especially when the visitor has been explicitly warned.
When will a skilled visitor’s claim against an occupier under the 1957 Act fail?
If the injury arises from a risk inherent to their profession and the occupier can reasonably rely on their expertise to deal with that risk.
Can an occupier discharge their duty toward a skilled visitor simply by giving a warning?
Yes, if the warning relates to a risk incidental to the visitor’s trade and the visitor ignores it, the occupier may be found to have fulfilled their duty.
What distinguishes the duty owed to a vulnerable visitor versus a skilled visitor?
Vulnerable visitors are owed a higher duty if the occupier is aware of their vulnerability, whereas skilled visitors are owed a lower duty due to their professional knowledge.
