Occupier's liability Flashcards
(5 cards)
Pre-requisites
D must be an occupier
- Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd: doesn’t require ownership or property rights, just some degree of control over the land
‘premises’ to which the act relates
- Tomlinson v Congleton BC: can relate to ‘natural features’
- Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc: must be not only dangerous but also defective (not made out in this case)
- Perry v Butlins Holiday World: must consider whether it’s defective to the relevant claimant (e.g. children)
Static vs activity dangers
- Stimpson v Wolverhampton MBC: OLA was considered to apply even though golfing is clearly an activity danger
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: CA explicit that we only look at the static condition of the premises
visitor or trespasser? which Act applies?
Robert Addie and Sons Ltd v Dumbreck: trespasser is someone with no invitation or licence (explicit or implied) to be on the land whatsoever (anyone else is a visitor)
The Carlgarth: if a visitor goes beyond the bounds of their permission/invitation to be there, they could become a trespasser and fall within the 1984 Act instead
Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland: ‘climbing up the banister’, C elevated to visitor because D knew children would go inside and play on the turntable (allurement AND implied licensee)
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: said no doctrine of allurement applies under the 57 Act- been abolished (but implied licensee still a thing)
Maloney v Torfaen CBC: implied licence still an acceptable legal doctrine to get into the 1957 Act even if it didn’t apply here
Occupier’s liability towards lawful visitors
DoC: statutorily stated
Standard of care:
- Jolley v Sutton LBC: occupiers must expect children to be less careful
Proving breach:
- must be foreseeable, usual quadrant applies
- Byrne v Motorsport Vision Racing Ltd: for D occupiers with professional qualifications, the Bolam/Bolitho test is applied
- Apres Lounge Ltd v Wade: standard is a reasonabe one, not an onerous one- no breach
statutory ‘escape hatches’
causation + remoteness governed by the usual rules of negligence
statutory defences for the occupier’s liability towards lawful visitors
s2(3)(b)
- (i) entrant was a person of special skill/calling
- (ii) risk was one ordinarily incidental to this work as a specialist (related to the special skill)
- (iii) danger manifested was one the specialist could have taken reasonable steps to guard against (occupier must have allowed him to appreciate the risk)
- Roles v Nathan: chimney sweeps case, caveat applied
- Woollins cv British Celanese Ltd: falling through roof not incidental to work as an electrical engineer, caveat did not apply
s 2(4)(a)
- (i) there was a warning
- (ii) notice and danger/risk must be sufficiently described
- Jolley v Sutton: nothing specific on the sign about the dangers posed (and Cs were children)
- Darby v National Trust: risk was so obvious no further signs needed
- Woollins v British Celanese Ltd: warning sign that the roof was unstable was tucked behind the door and so insufficient
s 2(4)(b)
- Haseldine v Daw: nature of the work (lift engineering) was such that D could not take such steps to ascertain the work was well done- D dropped out of the picture, could not be sued
- Martin v Martin Baker Engineering: D had not taken such steps as they ought to have satisfy themselves the work was properly done, it was a menial task as it would have been easy to remove the cardboard and ensure the scaffolding was clear to any visitors
Occupier’s liability towards unlawful entrants
DoC:
- s 1(3)
- White v St Albans’ CDC: just because occupier puts up ‘do not trespass’ signs, does not prove (of itself) they had knowledge
Breach:
- standard per s 1(4)
- Young v Kent CC: could have reasonably easily stopped C, would have been cheap
- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: resources important- NHS hospital resources are limited
- S 1(5) escape hatch
causation/remoteness
- usual principles apply
