Occupier's Liability (OLA) 57/84

Question 1

What is the definition of an occupier?

Answer 1

Someone who owns or has control over a premises

Question 2

What is the case to define an occupier?

Answer 2

Wheat vs E Lacon

Question 3

What is the POL from Wheat vs E Lacon?

Answer 3

An occupier is ‘someone who owns or has control over a premises’

Question 4

What section number is the definition of premises under?

Answer 4

S.1(3)

Question 5

What is the definition of premises?

Answer 5

‘Land, buildings, any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’

Question 6

What are the 2 types of permission?

Answer 6

1. Implied Permission
2. Express Permission

Question 7

What is express permission?

Answer 7

You are actually invited into the premises, this can include buying a ticket

Question 8

What is Implied Permission?

Answer 8

Where you expect to have permission to enter

Question 9

What is section 2.2 and the quote from it?

Answer 9

The occupier must hold a common Duty of Care to the victim

‘The visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited’

Question 10

What is the case and POL for Section 2.2?

Answer 10

Staples vs West Dorset DC - Warning not necessary as clearly visible

Question 11

What is the section number for children under OLA 57?

Answer 11

S.2(3a)

Question 12

What is S.2(3a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957?

Answer 12

Children

Question 13

What is the 2 quotes from Section 2.3a (Children)?

Answer 13

1. ‘An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’
2. ‘Premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age’

Question 14

What are the cases for Section 2.3a?

Answer 14

Glasgow Corporation vs Taylor
Phipps vs Rochester Corporation

Question 15

What is the POL from Glasgow Corporation vs Taylor?

Answer 15

Berries were tempting to a child (allurement) and there were no fencing or warning to stop them

Question 16

What is the POL from Phipps vs Rochester Corporation?

Answer 16

Not liable as no sensible parent would allow a child of 5 to wander off into a building site

Question 17

What is the section number for persons exercising a calling?

Answer 17

S.2(3b)

Question 18

What is Section 2.3b?

Answer 18

Persons exercising a calling

Question 19

What is the case and POL for Section 2.3b?

Answer 19

Roles vs Nathan - Chimney sweeps should’ve been aware of the dangers of Carbon Monoxide as it’s their job

Question 20

What is the section number for independent contractors?

Answer 20

S.2(4b)

Question 21

What is the quote and points from Section 2.4b

Answer 21

The occupier will not be held liable for the work of independent contractors if:

1. They took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent
2. If possible they should check the work has been carried out properly

Question 22

What is Section 2.4b?

Answer 22

Independent Contractors

Question 23

What is the case and POL from Section 2.4b

Answer 23

Haseldine vs Daw - Occupier cannot check if lift maintenance is correct as it’s highly technical so not liable

Question 24

What is the other case and POL from Section 2.4b?

Answer 24

Woodward vs Mayor of Hastings - The school had not checked if the step was free of snow and it was dangerous so held liable

Question 25

What are the 4 possible defences and section numbers for OLA 57?

Answer 25

1. S.2(3) Contributory Negligence 2. S.2(5) Volenti 3. S.2(4a) Warnings 4. S.2(1) Exclusion causes - cannot exclude death or personal injury

Question 26

What is Section 1.1 from OLA 84?

Answer 26

Must relate to the state of the premises

Question 27

What can you sue for under OLA 84?

Answer 27

Just personal injury, not property

Question 28

What case states someone can change from being a lawful visitor to a trespasser?

Answer 28

Tomlinson vs Congleton

Question 29

What is the POL from Tomlinson vs Congleton?

Answer 29

He entered a park as a lawful visitor but jumped into a lake which had warning signs so turned into a trespasser

Question 30

What section defines the 3 points that need to be met for OLA 84

Answer 30

S.1(3) OLA 84

Question 31

What are the 3 points that need to be met to show the occupier owes a duty of care under OLA 84?

Answer 31

1. The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists. 2. They know, or have reasonable grounds to believe, that the other person is in the vicinity of the danger concerned, or that they might come into the vicinity of the danger. 3. The risk is one which in all circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection from.

Question 32

What is the POL from Swain vs Natui Ram Puri? (Quote 2)

Answer 32

The occupier did not have reasonable grounds to believe or knowledge of the child might enter the vicinity so not liable.

Question 33

What is the POL from Scott vs ABP? (Quote 2)

Answer 33

No duty of care for the first accident as they were unaware of the risk but there was a duty of care for the second one as aware they could enter the vicinity - could consider children (Glasgow Corporation vs Taylor).

Question 34

What is the POL from Platt vs Liverpool County Council? (Quote 3)

Answer 34

Not liable as they had done all that was reasonable to mitigate the risk in the circumstances.

Question 35

What is the difference from OLA 57 and OLA 84?

Answer 35

OLA 57 - Have permission to be there OLA 84 - Tresspassers

Question 36

What are the defences used in an OLA 84 scenario?

Answer 36

Same as OLA 57 Contributory Negligence Volenti Warnings Exclusion Clauses