Occupier's liability Flashcards
(23 cards)
Occupier liability
A person may bring an Occupiers’ liability claim when they have been injured, (or sometimes where their property has been damaged) due to the defendant’s premises being in a dangerous state
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
The Act saves time establishing a duty of care, because it states that the same duty of care is owed to ALL LAWFUL VISITORS (previously in Negligence law, there were different levels of duty to different types of visitor which was not fair).
Under the Act, there is a duty to take ‘reasonable care’ to keep visitors ‘reasonably safe’. D has breached his/her duty if s/he hasn’t don’t this.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
provides limited protection to trespasser
the two acts
O.L comes from…
Statute law – but you also need case law (precedents) to illustrate and show interpretation of the statute sections.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Deals with injury/loss suffered by VISITORS
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Deals with injury suffered by TRESPASSERS
For both Acts, a person can only sue if they suffered injury/loss due to the state of the premises
key elements
occupier and the premises
occupier definition
Occupier is the defendant. This is not defined in either Act. Allows the law to grow and be flexible. Case law definition from Wheat v Lacon, Harris v Birkenhead. “Anyone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises/part of” this means there can be more than one occupier.
premises
Premises- This is also the same under both Acts- OLA 1957 S1(3)(a) states that premises include “a fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft” other examples from case law include a ladder, a path.
Types of lawful Visitors
S.2(1) of the Occupiers liability Act 1957
The occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
Invitees- person who have been invited to enter the premises and who have express permission to be there
Licensees -people who have express or implied permission to be on the premises or a particular period and purpose
Those with conctractual permission to be on the premises
Those given a statutory right of entry
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957- S.2(2)- The standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care
S.2(2) - The standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care
This means that occupier must take reasonable care to make visitors reasonable safe if the occupier has reasonable care they are not liable
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway supreme - as the occupier had fitted slip-resistant floor titles and used mop and bucket . The occupier took precaution to ensure that health and safety regulation is followed this allows the occupier avoid liability
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957- 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 of that age
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 of that age
this is because Children don’t know better so the occupier must take reasonable care
Glasgow v Taylor- A seven year old child died from eating poisonous berries pick from a shrub in a public park. The shrub were liable as they were aware of the danger and the berries amount to allurement to young children. The occupier were liable
Phipps v Rochester- parents should have be responsible , not allowing the children to be playing in unsafe areas
Occupiers’ liability Act 1957 - S.2(3b) the occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks
S.2(3b) the occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks
Occupier would not be liable for the actions of a professional
Like Roles V Nathan-they could expect the chimmey sweeps to be aware of the potential damage and take necessary precautions
Occupier’s liability Act 1957 s.2(4a) The occupier will not be liable if they give a warning of the danger but it must be enough to keep the visitors reasonable safe
s.2(4a) The occupier will not be liable if they give a warning of the danger but it must be enough to keep the visitors reasonable safe
The warnings
If there are sufficient warning to keep the visitors reasonably safe
IN Rae v Mars - the warning sign was insufficient there was no specfic detail , the danger was not obivious it was dark
Occupier’s liability Act 1957-S.2(4b) the occupier will not be liable if the danger arose due to the work of an independent contractors
S.2(4b) the occupier will not be liable if the danger arose due to the work of an independent contractors
- was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor. E,g Haselaine v daw -the occupier entrust highly specialist work resulted in the injury of the claimant
- The occupier had checked that the contractor was competent
In Bottomley V Todmordern-the contractor used a different method rather than the safest method - The occupier has checked that the work has been done properly
Occupiers’ liability act 1984
deals with injury suffered by trespasser-this is minimal protection
the duty is not automatic unlike duty to visitors in OLA.certain criteria must be satisfied before any duty will be owned to trespassers
S.1(3) says that a duty of care is owned to a trespasser if
the occupier is aware of th danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists should be aware
the occupier know or has reasonable ground to know that trespasser are might to come in vicinity of the danger . the danger is the danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against
Occupier’s liability Act 1984- S.1(a) Claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of the premises
S.1(a) Claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of the premises
Gaery V Wetherspoon where the claimant entered the premises but she became a trespasser when she exceeded her permission by sliding dowm the barristers
Occupier’s liability Act 1984
S.1(3) For a duty to arise to non-visitors , all 3 criteria must be satisfied
S.1(3) of the occupiers’ liability act 1984 For a duty to arise to non-visitors , all 3 criteria must be satisfied
(a) Defendant was aware/had reasonable grounds to be aware of the danger
(b) Defendant was aware that non-visitors were/ might be in the vicinity of the danger
(c) The danger was one which defendant could reasonably have protected against
S.1(3a) Occupier liability act 1984 Defendant must be aware / had reasonable grounds to be aware of the danger
S. 1(3a) of occupier liability act 1984 the defendant was aware and had reasonable grounds to be aware of the danger this can be 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
S.1(3b) of the occupier’s liability act 1984 - Defendant was aware that non-visitors were /might be in the vicinity of the danger
S.1(3b) of the occupier’s liability act 1984 - Defendant was aware that non-visitors were /might be in the vicinity of the danger this can be seen in the case of Higgs v Foster where the defendant did not owe a duty to the trespassing policeman because claimant had not shown a warrant so the defendant was unaware of his presecence
S.1(3c) of the occupiers’ liability act 1984 The danger was one which defendant could reasonably have protected against
S.1(3c) of the occupiers’ liability act 1984 The danger was one which defendant could reasonably have protected against this can be seen in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton where the defendant did not owe a duty because the lake was not the type of danger which it is reasonable to offer any further protection against
S.1(4) of the Occupiers’ liability act 1984 says that the duty is to take suxh care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger
S.1(4) of the Occupiers’ liability act 1984 says that the duty is to take suxh care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger this can be seen in the case of Keown V Coventry -
where the defendants were not liable because the 11 year old trespasser injuires were not due to the state of the premises
S.1(5) The occupiers’ liability 1984- the occupier can avoid liability if he/she gives reasonable warning
S.1(5) The occupiers’ liability 1984- the occupier can avoid liability if he/she gives reasonable warning this can be seen in the case of Westwood v Post Office where it was held that the warning was seen as reasonable because it was sufficient for a reasonable adult
S.1(6) of occupiers’ liability act 1984 - Defendant can avoid liability if claimant was volenti
S.1(5) The occupiers’ liability 1984- Defendantcan avoid liability if claimant was volenti this can be seen the case of Ratcliffe v McConnell where the claimant ignored signs saying shalloe end so dfendant was not liable for the claimant’s injury . Claimant ignored signs saying, no swimming and no diving
Contributory Negligence
If the claimant wins but the defndant was partly to blame, damages may be reduced
