Occupier liability Act 1957 Evaluation Flashcards
(8 cards)
Occupiers’ liability Act 1957 ( Fair on the defendant). S.2(3a)
S.2(3a) The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and must make sure the premises are reasonably safe for a child.it is fair to the occupier as seen in the case of Phipps V Rochestor where it was held that parents should be responsible not allowing their children to be playing in unsafe areas this is fairs as it allows the claimant to take respinsibility for their actions and lack of supervision however s. 2(3a) , it does expect children to take responsibility for their own safety as seen in the case of Glasgow V Taylor where the defendant was held liable this is ebcause the berries was allurement to young children this menas that this can seen as unfair to the dendant
Occupiers’ liability Act 1957 ( Fair on the defendant)-s. 2(2)
S.2(2) The standard of care is that occupier must take reasonable care to visitors reasonably safe. it is fair on the occupier as it offers some protection as if there was a reasonable attempt by the occupiers to keep visitors safe as seen in the case of Laverton V Kiapasha as the occupier had fitted slip resistant titles and used a mop and bucket. The occupiers took precautions to ensure taht health and safety regulation however as teh idea of reasonable is subjective tjis means it is open to intrepretation this can create some uncertainity in the precedent in the law
Occupiers’ liability Act 1957 ( Fair on the defendant)-S.2(4a)
S.2(4a) of the occupiers’liability act 1957 states the occupier will not be liable if they give a warning of the danger but it must be enough to keep visitors reasonable safe. This is fair on the occupier as it provides the occupiers protection as the occupier has put measures in place to ensure that the visitors are reasonable safe however it does not offer protection when it children this can be seen in the case of Rae v Mars where it was held that the warning was not specific enough and this could lead to uncertainty
Occupiers’ liability Act 1957 ( Fair on the defendant)- S.2(4b)
S.2(4b) of the occupiers’liability act 1957 states that the occupier will not be liable if the danger arose the danger arose due to the work of an independent contractor. This is fair o n the occupier as it provides the occupier with reduced liability and protection as it as the work was entrusted to an independent contractor as seen in the case of hasedline v Daw , the occupier trust an independent contractor with a highly specialist however the occupier can still be partially liable id=f they did not check the competence of the contra tor this can be seen in the case of Bottomley V Todmordern as the independent contractor used a different method different from the usual methods
Occupiers’ liability act 1957 Evaluation - Fair on the claimant S.2(3a)
S.2(3a) of the occupiers’s liability act 1957 is fair on the caliamnt as it provides protection has not take reasonable care visitors reasonably safe, it allows them hold the occupiers as seen in glaslow v Taylor , the occupier was held liable as the occupier did not take reasonable care to ensure that that the berries were fenced off,however in Phipps V Rochestor, the occupier can get away if the patent don’t prohibted the danger
Occupiers’ liability act 1957 Evaluation - Fair on the claimant-meaning of the occupier
The meaning of the occupier is defined through common law. An occupiers is anyone with a sufficient control over the premises this means that there can be multiple occupier. this seen in wheat v lacon where both the owner and the manager of the pub were possible occupiers. Wide common law definition of occupier means that jusges are prepare to allow claims against not just owners of land but anyone who had control over the premises at the time of the accident .This is beneficial to the claimant as it gives them good access to compensation however it shows the complexity of determine the occupier. This can create uncertainity due to the complex nature of identifying an occupier
Occupiers’ liability act 1957 Evaluation - Fair on the claimant- S.1(3)
S.1(3) of the occupiers’ liability act 1957 satates premises is defined as a fixed or moveable stucture inclusing a vechile ,vessel or aircraft as seen in the case of Wheeler v Copas this highlights how even a ladder counted as premises. this is also gengerous to the claimant as there is a wider meaning of the premises whether the claimant was injured on the land itself in a buliding or a moveable structure they would they would be able to bring a claim . Howevr it means that occupiers must be careful that all parts of the premises are safe
Occupiers’ liability act 1957 Evaluation - Fair on the claimant-S.2(2)
S.2(2) of the occupiers liability act 1957 states that duty of care is owned to all lawful visitors.this is a big improvement on the previous common law before the 1957 act which held that different levels of duty were owned depending on the status of the visitors. For example ,contractucal visitors were better protected than mere licensees. Under the 1957 Act,all types of visitors are equally well protected however if a lawful visitor are equally well protected howevr if a lawful visitor steps beyond the limits of their permission to be on premises they may become as a trespasser and have to rely on the more limited protection of the 1984 act
