Occupier's Liability Flashcards Preview

Tort Law > Occupier's Liability > Flashcards

Flashcards in Occupier's Liability Deck (25)
Loading flashcards...

Wheat v Lacon

Facts: D company gave manager license to use and rent out rooms on their premises and his guest was killed by defective stairs.

Precedent: An occupier within the meaning of the OLA need not exclusively occupy the premises


Harris v Birkenhead Corp

Facts: A local authority made a compulsory purchase order on a house but before it could move in a child was injured on the premises.

Precedent: It is the legal right to control the state of the premises and not physical possession of the premises that matters.


Edwards v Railway Executive

Facts: D was aware that children frequently climbed through a fence and had taken steps to deter entry. A child got through and was injured.

Precedent: Permission may not be implied by the occupier's knowledge of the entrant's presence or failure to deter entry.

Key Quote: "repeated trespass confers no license"


Hartwell v Grayson Rollo

Precedent: There may be more than one occupier of the same premises but their DoCs may be different in content


Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Facts - a child died after eating poisonous berries from a shrub in the park. allegedly D local authority knew of the poisonous berries but took no precautions.

Precedent - Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.


Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust

Precedent 1: If the state of the premises is not inherently dangerous and the danger arises from C's conscious choice to do something dangerous liability will not usually arise.

Precedent 2: A child's choice to do something dangerous will not always be excused by the courts.


Cunningham v Reading FC

Precedent: An occupier's duty under the 1957 Act extends to preventing visitors from harming other visitors by foreseeable likely misconduct.


Braithwaite v Durham Steel Co

Precedent: If the occupier does not take reasonable steps to ensure visitors remain within the permitted area and owing to his negligence they step outside the area he will be liable for damage sustained thereby.


Lewis v Ronald

Precedent: If the visitor goes somewhere the occupier has expressly or impliedly warned him not to go the occupier will not be liable for damages sustained thereby.


Stone v Taffe

Precedent: If V's permission to enter is limited by time and this was clearly communicated to him the occupier is not liable for damage sustained after expiry.


Latham v R Johnson

Precedent: If there is no allurement or dangerous object on the premises the occupier will not ordinarily be liable for extraordinary damages suffered by children.


Phipps v Rochester Corp

Precedent 1: S2.2 of the 1957 Act requires us to consider what the occupier is reasonably entitled to expect of the child's parents.

Precedent 2: The primary responsibility for the care of young children lies with the parents and cannot be delegated to the occupier by the OLA


Roles v Nathan

Precedent: Under S.2(3)b the occupier may expect that a person exercising his calling will appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it.


Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants

Precedent: Where C is exercising his calling in response to a situation created by D's negligence OR is injured by a risk incident to his calling that cannot be eliminated by proper skill S.2(3)b will not apply.


AMF International Ltd

If the work done by the independent contractor is complex S.2(4)b may require the occupier to have the contractor's work supervised by a qualified specialist.


Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

If the work is routine and does not require any particular expertise the occupier may be expected to check it personally if he does not do it himself.



The occupier is not necessarily required to check work of a technical nature, especially if he lacks the requisite technical skill.


Naylor v Payling

S.2(4)b does not require the occupier to take reasonable steps to see that the contractor is insured.


Bottomley v Todmordern Cricket Club

An occupier who allows extra-hazardous activity to take place on his premises may be liable for failing to see that the contractor has insurance and a proper safety plan.


Simms v Leigh RFC

In accordance with S.2(5) the common DoC of the occupier does not extend to risks which the visitor willingly accepts as his.


White v Blackmore

Private occupiers are not covered by UCTA and thus may exclude liability in accordance with S.2(1) of the OLA


Burnett v British Waterways Board

V cannot be subject to an exclusion notice if he lacks real freedom of choice as to whether or not to enter.


White v St Albans DC

Facts: C was trespassing on D's fenced off property and fell into a trench.

Precedent: Measures to stop entry of premises containing some danger may not satisfy S.1(3)b if a more effective solutions as readily available.


Revill v Newberry

The OLA applies to the occupier's liability AS OCCUPIER and outside that common law negligence will apply.


Tomlinson v Congleton BC

Precedent: In considering what is expected of the occupier under the 1984 Act a costs-benefits approach must be taken as to any contemplated preventive measures.

Precedent: Occupiers are not ordinarily under a duty to incur costs in order to protect their visitors, lawful or otherwise, against obvious dangers - this would infringe autonomy.