Occupier’s Liabilty Flashcards
(21 cards)
Two acts
OLA 1957 -for claims brought by lawful visitors
OLA 1984 -for claims brought by trespassers
Occupier
D must be an occupier. This isn’t explained in either act but judges have decided it means someone who has ‘sufficient control’ of the premises
Premises
S.1(3) OLA 1957 says that premises includes ‘a fixed or moveable structure’
Liability to lawful visitors
S.2 (1) The occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
This includes invitees, licensees and those given a statutory right to enter
Standard of care
S.2(2) The standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway: D’s fitted slip resistant tiles and cleaned floors with mop and bucket when it had been raining. Reasonable care had been taken to ensure customers’ safety. They didn’t have to make the premises completely safe.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
Tripping/slipping/falling are everyday occurrences and occupiers are only obligated to make premises really safe, not guarantee safety. A visitor will be reasonably safe even if there are minor visible defects.
The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
S.2(3)a) higher standard of care for children
Glasgow v Taylor: council were liable they were aware of poisonous berries but didn’t fence them off. This was an allurement to young children.
Phipps v Rochester: Council not liable as occupiers are entitled to expect that parents will not allow their young children to go to places that are potentially unsafe.
Professional visitors
S.2(3)b) the occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks (lower standard of care for professional visitors)
Roles v Nathan: chimney sweeps died after inhaling fumes. They had been warned of the danger. Occupiers could expect the chimney sweeps to be aware of the potential danger and take necessary precautions. So no liability.
Warnings
S.2(4)a) the occupier won’t be liable if they give a sufficient warning of the danger
Rae v Mars: warning of a deep pit inside the entrance of a dark shed. Occupier liable as the pit was immediately in the entrance of the shed. Warning wasn’t sufficient.
Independent contractor
S.2(4)b) the occupier won’t be liable if the danger arose due to the work of an independent contractor if:
1. It was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor HASELDINE V DAW
2. The occupier has checked that the contractor was competent BOTTOMLEY V TODORDEN
3. The occupier has checked that the work has been done properly WOODWARD V HASTINGS
Haseldine v Daw
Occupier not liable for he negligent repair or maintenance of the lift as this was highly specialist work and it was reasonable to give this work to a specialist firm.
Bottomley v Todmorden
Cricket club hired an unpaid amateur with no pyrotechnic experience to carry out firework display. C was burnt and broke arm when stunt went wrong. The stunt team had no insurance cover. The club was liable as they failed to exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors.
Woodward v Hastings
Child injured on school steps that had been left icy tear snow has been cleared from them. The occupiers were liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure e work had been properly done, and the danger should have been obvious to them.
Exclusion clauses
S.2(1) the occupier can “restrict , modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise”
“A trader cannot by a consumer contract or a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.”
Defences
S.2(5)
Defence of consent and contributory negligence
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
For trespassers
S.1(1)a) OLA 1984
Claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of premises
S.1 (3) 1984
A duty of care is only owed to a trespasser if:
-The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists
-The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to know that tresspassers are, or might come into the vicinity of the danger
-The danger is the type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against
Rhind v Astbury- Clmt ignored notice stating ‘private property: strictly no swimming’ and was injured in the lake by submerged fibreglass containers which D was unaware existed. No liability as no obligation on occupier to check for hidden dangers as swimming was prohibited.
S.1(4) OLA 1984
Duty is to “take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger” (no claims for property damage)
Keown v Coventry- boy fell from fire escape of hospital when showing off to his friends. CoA held that, as he appreciated the danger, it wasn’t the state of the premises that was the problem it was what the boy was doing on it. Hospital not liable as there was no danger due to the state of the premises.
S.1(5) Warnings can be a good defence
Westwood v Post Office- An adult employee of the post office was injured when he entered an unlocked room which had a warning of danger on the outside. The post office wasn’t liable as the notice was a sufficient warning to an adult.
S.1(6) Volenti (consent) can also be a good defence
Tomlinson v Congleton- Council owned park including lake which had a warning sign and a plan to make the lake inaccessible. Clmt age 18 swam in lake and struck his head on the bottom causing paralysis. No liability to council as danger wasn’t due to the state of the premises but c’s swimming and trespassers have to take some responsibility for their actions.
