Occupier liability Act 1984 Evaluation

Question 1

Occupiers liability Act 1984 ( Fair on the occupier)- S.1(4)

Answer 1

S.1(4) of the Occupiers liability act 1984 states that duty is to take such care is reasonable in circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. This is fair on the occupier as if the occupier has take reasonable attempt as seen in the Tominlison V Congleton as the occupier has exercised reasonable care by putting up a notice saying no swimimng,no diving however it may create liability as idea of reasonable this menas that it is open to intrepretation this can create uncertainity within the law

Question 2

Occupiers liability Act 1984 ( Fair on the occupier)-S. 1(3)

Answer 2

S.1(3) of the occupiers liability act 1984 states that for a duty to arise to non-visitors all criteria must be satisified. Defendant was aware of the danger ,defendant was aware that non-visitors were might be in the vicinity of one danger . The danger was one which the defndant was one in which the defendant could reasonably have protected against. This is fair as it allows all aspects to be examine before the occupier owes a duty of care as seen in the case of Rhind v Astbury where the defendant did not owe a duty to the trespasser because he was unaware of the dangerous objects below the surface however it can establish a duty if the occupier did not anything to prevent the danger

Question 3

Occupiers liability Act 1984 ( Fair on the occupier)- S.1(5)

Answer 3

s.1(5) of the occupiers liability act 1984 states that the occupier can avoid liability if the occupier gives a reasonable warning as seen in the case of westwood v post office as the warning was seen as reasonable because it was sufficient for a reasonable adult. the westwood case seems o show that judges are more likely to accept that warning are sufficient under the 1984act compared to the 1957 act. the warning did not specify the danger but still held to reasonable to the claim failed however it can create liaility for occupier if they did not take reasonable care

Question 4

Occupiers liability Act 1984 ( Fair on the occupier)- s.1(6)

Answer 4

S.1(6) Of the occupiers liability act 1984 says that defendant can avoid liability if claimant was volenti(knowlingly accepted a risk) this is seen in the case of Ratcliffe v Mcconnell and the claimant ignored signs saying shallow end so defendant was not liable for the claimant’s injury . Trespasser will often be seen as volenti even older children as seen in the case of Keown v Coventry provided that they were aware of the risk they were taking against this shows that the judge are emphasing personal responsibility and may claims will fall for this reason however liability can still arise even if there is knowledge of the risk

Question 5

Occupiers liability act 1984 (Fair on the claimant)-S.1(1a)

Answer 5

S.1(1a) Of the occupiers liability act 1984 says that claims can be brought by people”other than lawful visitors for injuiries due to the state of the premises this is fair on the caliamnt as it achieves justice for the trespasser because they are allowed to bring claims for injures due to the state of the premises however the act offers limited protection for trespasses this may prohbits claimants form getting justice for the actions of the occupier

Question 6

Occupiers liability act 1984 (Fair on the claimant)- S. 1(3)

Answer 6

S. 1(3) of the occupiers liability act 1984 states that for a duty of care to arise to non-visitors all 3 criteria must be satisfied this is fair in the claimant as it is detailed which allows all aspects to be examined in order to the claimant to access justice however as the duty of care is not automatic so failure to meet these requirement results to a loss in the claim as seen in the case of Rhind v Astbury as the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the trespasser because he was unaware of the dangerous objects below the surface

Question 7

Occupiers liability act 1984 (Fair on the claimant)-S.1(4)

Answer 7

S.1(4) of the occupiers liability act 1984 states that claimants can claim for injury but not property damage it isright that trespasser should only to claim for injuries and not propertydamage as trespassers are held to claim and hold occupiers accountable to any danger they may have encountered however it is unfair as it won’t able to claim on the basis on property

Question 8

Occupiers liability act 1984 (Fair on the claimant- S.1(3a)

Answer 8

S.1(3a) of the occupiers liability act 1984 states that of the duty of care criteria under s.1(3) where defendant was aware of the danger this is fair on the claimant this is because if the occupier did not take reasonable care to keep the premises reasonable safe this provides some protection to the claimant however this protection is limited additionally the occupier can avoid liability if he took reasonable care to ensure the premises is safe this can be seen with with s. 1(/5 where a warning is sufficient this can be seen in the case of Westwood v Post office