Evaluation Plans Flashcards
OL - TOO LENIENT
The law on Occupiers Liability needs to be reformed as it is too lenient on unlawful visitors. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 allows lawful visitors to claim for personal injury and property damage whereas the 1984 Act Allows for limited claims on personal injury. Although many people would claim this is positive as unlawful visitors, or trespassers, are limited in what they can claim, it is still too lenient. Lord Hoffman in Tomlinson V Congleton DC stated shouldnt ordinarily be able to force duties upon unwilling hosts. Therefore, the law on Occupiers liability should be reformed in order to protect occupiers from liability of trespassers.
OL - IMPOSITION OF DUTY
A further reason why the law on Occupiers Liability requires reform is because the imposition of duty is different for both acts which creates confusion. In the 1957 act, everything that is reasonable to ensure safety is an objective test, similar to other torts. However, in the 1984 act, it depends on if the occupier was aware of the danger - which is subjective. Donoghue V Folkstone properties shows that due to circumstances being different, the outcomes may be different which creates confusion and uncertainty in the law which may create issues in the systems with regards to cost and lawyers. Therefore, reform is required in order to make the law fairer and more consistent when deciding liability.
OL - JUDICIAL ATTITUDES
However, the law on occupiers liability does not require extensive reform because of judicial attitudes towards the 1984 act. Although the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 gives trespassers the right to make claims, many judges have found reasons to disallow. This means that public opinions can be reflected, as many suggest people should not be able to profit. Under the act, the danger must be obvious - as shown in Ratcliff V McConnel. The word ‘obvious’ is shallow, which means that even if a trespasser is injured, it is difficult to claim for personal injury.
OL - CONCLUSION
Overall, it is evident that the law on OL requires reform due to the confusion it may cause in the legal system and the vast differences between each of the acts. Although there are ways around the issues Occupiers Liability causes, it would be useful to reform the acts in order to make it more consistent and easier to understand in order to minimise costs and delay in the legal system. For example, by consolidating the acts.
NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE
One reason the law on negligence does not need ro be reformed is because the laws on duty of care have been reformed and changed to make it fairer. Although there were problems with Caparo, Robinson changed the law and made it clearer and more understandable by stating that the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead the courts should look to existing statutes and precedents. Robinson made sure that the law was fair, and filtered the system effectively, preventing overload. Some may say there are still problems, such as the worlds ‘fair, just and reasonable’ being too vague when deciding if someone should have a duty imposed on them. However, because these tests are established through precedent, judges are able to see past interpretations to make a fair judgement. In conclusion, the law on duty of care has been adjusted enough and so no reform is required as testing is thorough and consistent.
NEGLIGENCE - BREACH OF DUTY
Another reason the law on negligence does not need reform is because the law on breaching duties takes other affecting factors into consideration. When establishing if a duty has been breached, D’s characteristics are considered as shown in Nettleship V Weston which means that law is applied fairly to both the claimant and D. Furthermore, risk factors are taken into account, which is fair on both parties. For example, the defendant is judged against his knowledge of the risk, as shown in Roe V Mott. Although some people would argue that the tests being objective is unfair, as cases may not be properly judged based on facts, the objective test keeps the law consistent and therefore fair on both the claimant and defendant.
NEGLIGENCE - BUT FOR TEST
However, the law on negligence may need to be reformed slightly in order to make causation fairer on the claimant. Although many may argue that the but-for test is fair as it applies the law similarly which means that all claimants are treated equally. The but for test is only appropriate when there is one defendant and one cause of damage. This means that the claimant may not be able to prove which defendant is at fault for which cause of damage and therefore end up with no compensation such as in Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital. Therefore, the law may require slight reform surrounding the law on causation.
