eval of occupiers Flashcards
what does OLA 1957 provide
That the occupier may owe a duty of care to protect lawful visitors
definition of an occupier
an occupier has no statutory definition and can include those with sufficient control over the premises
sufficient control over the premises case
wheat v lacon
what is a premises according to s.1(3)a
a fixed moveable structure
what is the s for duty of care
s2(1)
what is O’s duty
to do what is reasonable to see the visitor will be reasonably safe for which they’ve been invited
Stables v West Dorset Council
No obligation to warn/protect against obvious risk
what is the rule under s2(3)(a)
a greater duty is owed to children by an occ
Glasgow v Taylor
a greater duty is owed to children
Phipps v Rochester
courts are more likely to hold that very young children are the responsibility of the parent
s.2(3)b
contractors
Nathan v Roles
an occupier can expect a contractor will guard against any special risks
2.2(4)b plus case
contractors will be regarded as occupiers in relation to work Hasan v Daw
when technical…
there is very little an occupier can do
what is the remedy
damages
Prior to OLA 57
the common law was both harsh and
complex and there were different levels of standard
expected for different types of visitor – this meant that justice was only provided to some.
One of the main objectives of the Act was to simplify the common law so that justice is provided for all lawful entrants
words within the act point-
One strength of the law on occupiers’ liability is the broad definition of key concepts such as occupier, lawtul vIsitor and premises.
This helps ensure that the scope of the law provides the widest possible protection to lawful visitors and allows for a potentially just outcome to be achieved
words within the act dp
In Wheat v Lacon the court laid down a control test to determine whether a person was classitied as an occupier. This test ensures that the law extends beyond owners of property and recognises the reality that in many situations those running businesses or living on property are not the owners of the premises
words within the act wdp
. However, the breadth of the law could cause uncertainty as occupiers may be unaware of the extent of their potential liability. For example, they could be liable for a defective ladder as in Wheeler v Copas. On the other hand, the fact that the meaning of premises does cover moveable structures as well as venicles, vessels and aircraft ensures that people are protected and can obtain compensation in a broad range ot situations.
concept of reasonableness p
One strength of OL is that occupiers are only required to do what is reasonable.This is judged objectively and ensures that occupiers are judged by the standards of other occupiers and ensures a degree of consistency in how the law operates.
Furthermore, the requirement of reasonableness helps ensure that the law reflects a fair balance between the need to protect the safety of lawful visitors and the interests of the occupier by having a duty which does not impose a disproportionate burden. Occupiers are therefore only liable when they are at fault.
concept of reasonableness dp
This can be seen in the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway where the occupier had taken reasonable precautions to protect customers in heavy rain by providing an absorbent mat and mopping the floor at intervals.
concept of reasonableness wdp
In addition, the strength of the reasonableness requirement can also be seen in the rule that there is no duty to protect or warn of obvious risks (Cotton v Derbyshire Dales; Staples v West Dorset). However, a person could possibly be liable for something they were not aware of - for example water damage to a roof causing ceiling plaster to fall on the audience as seen in the Piccadilly Circus theatre incident in 2019.
children p
Another strength of the law is the extent of the duty owed to children. The law recognises that children are more vulnerable than adults and deserving of a greater degree of protection (section 2 (3)(a)).The law is recogonsing public interest
children dp
its appropriate to have additional responsibility towards children as they are in a position to protect them from any danger. This can be seen in the case of Glasgow V Taylor where the council failed to protect children from a tree with poisonous berries. It would have been easy to do so, at little cost and would not have imposed an unreasonable burden on the council.
Furthermore, the council is providing a public service and should be accountable for their actions. The tree acted as an allurement and posed a danger to children. A further example of this can be seen in Jolley v Sutton where the courts recognised the doctrine of allurement in which a child trespasser can be treated as a lawful visitor if their presence on the premises is a consequence of the allurement.