Occupiers Evaluation

Question 1

1957 act

Answer 1

…

Question 2

A01: Duty of care

Answer 2

S.2(1) Occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors: includes invitees, licensees, contractual duty, statutory authority to be there.

Question 3

A03 for duty of care

Answer 3

-Good, b4 act different levels were owed depending on status eg contractual more than visitors
-now have automatic duty of care
-don’t have to prove lawful visitor like in 84 act, all types of lawful visitor given the same standard. Protects claimant as they don’t have to prove to get compensation
BUT doesn’t provide protection for trespassers under this act, so before 84 act couldn’t claim if you were trespasser and experienced injury due to state of premises. If visitor go beyond their permission the have to rely on the limited 84 act

Question 4

A01: occupiers

Answer 4

-common law definition
-someone with sufficient control over premises. Can be more than one occupier eg in wheat v Alcon, the manager and the owner of the pub
-Harris v Birkenhead council occupiers as they hadn’t boarded up the house

Question 5

A03: occupiers

Answer 5

-Deliberately kept broad to avoid some occupiers being able to avoid liability. Judges can allow claims against not just owners but anyone with control
-protects C’s as if occupiers can avoid liability due to narrow definition then unlikely to be able to get protection, causes difficulty and wasted time
-Furmedge, claims against several occupiers and compensation in percentages. Good for C as allows good access to compensation for claimant.

Question 6

A01: premises

Answer 6

-S1(3) premises include any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel vehicle or aircraft. Could be ship, house, ladder, path.
-wheeler v copas a ladder was considered premises

Question 7

A03: premises

Answer 7

-Broad and wide meaning of premises. Generous to the claimant as allows then to claim whether they were on land, in building or moveable structure.
-But for occupiers means they must keep all aspects of property safe to avoid claims

Question 8

A01: standard of care

Answer 8

S.2(2) Standard of care to take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe
-Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway: occ not liable as they took reasonable care with non slip tiles and mopping the floor.

Question 9

A03: standard of care

Answer 9

-Don’t have to get rid of all dangers, impossible, only need to make it reasonably safe
-BUT reduces generosity of claims for claimants, reduce justice they receive
-judges also encourage to take own responsibility

Question 10

Conc for 57 act

Answer 10

-provides reasonable justice to claimant suffering harm due to state of the premises. Broad definitions can allow for wider claim scopes. Increases justice
-BUT reduces the justice for the claimant as occ not liable if they have taken reasonable precautions to make it safe
-Provides a lot of justice but too much and this could increase compensation culture

Question 11

OLA 84 diff protection for non-visitors

Answer 11

…

Question 12

A01: Duty of care

Answer 12

S.1(1)(a) Claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of the premises
-Keown v Coventry: premises not the problem, shouldn’t have been there.
-Gerry v Whetherspoon: no problem with the bannister, due to the persons actions
S.1(4) duty is to take such care that is reasonable in all the circumstances

Question 13

A03: duty of care

Answer 13

-Compensation only given if fault with the premises even tho trespasser.
-need to keep premises safe bc if trespasser could be injured by the premises then so can a lawful visitor
-Trespassers lowers standard of care, only for protection of personal injury, not personal belongings. Goof because if they could claim for all then exploit the law.

Question 14

A01: occupier and premises

Answer 14

Occupier: someone who has sufficient control over the premises (wheat v lacon)
S.1(3) 57 act: fixed or moveable structure including any vessel vehicle or aircraft (wheeler v copas)

Question 15

A03: occupier and premises

Answer 15

-Wide definition of ‘occupier’ and ‘premises’, judge can allow claims against those in control at the time, owed the same as lawful visitor
-protection for trespassers as can access compensation if they injured in a moveable structure. Gives same protection as lawful visitor in this scenario
-HOWEVER bc the definition of occupier is wide, up to the judge to decide, may decide not to allow it due to them being a trespasser

Question 16

Duty of care pt 2

Answer 16

S.1(1)(a) brought by people other than lawful visitors
-Trespasser: no permission to be there or that part of the premises for that purpose
-Geary v Wetherspoon: entered as visitor but became trespasser when exceeded permission

Question 17

A03: duty of care/trespasser

Answer 17

-Easy for visitor to become a trespasser if go beyond their permission
-geary had to rely on the 84 act which is more limited. Visitors may become trespassers w/o realising and if they are injured then more restricted. Less protection
-but people have free will and if they choose to enter somewhere with no permission or assume risk then fair they receive less protection

Question 18

A01: 3 criteria

Answer 18

S.1(3) for duty of care to arise to non visitors, all 3 criteria
A) occupier aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists Rhind v Astbury
B) Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to know trespassers are or might come into the vicinity of the danger. Higgs v Foster
C) danger is type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against. Tomlinson v congelton

Question 19

A03: duty of care criteria

Answer 19

-Not automatic, only if the 3 critiera are proved
-trespassers less likely to be protected under the act
-more easily avoid owing duty of care
-less suff protection given
BUT trespassing illegal so reasonable that there is less of a duty of care

Question 20

Conclusion for 84 act

Answer 20

Less protection for trespassers under 84 than for visitors under the 57 act. But does provide suff protection as there is a wide scope of claims under the definitions. Also takes into account that trespassers should not have automatic duty of care similar to lawful visitors

Question 21

Difference between the 57 and the 84 act

Answer 21

…

Question 22

A01: duty of care

Answer 22

1957 s.2(1) Occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
1984 s.1(1)(a) Duty of care to non visitors, claims can be made by people other than lawful visitors for injury due to the state of the premises
1984 s.1(3) Only owed if occupier aware of the danger, knows about trespassers, and could reasonably protect against. Rhind, Higgs, Tomlinson

Question 23

A03 for duty of care

Answer 23

-Diff duty of care to visitors and trespassers. Automatic for all types of lawful. But 84 act duty isn’t automatic. Have to prove the 3 requirements
-more difficult for trespassers to be able to claim for injuries. Fair as not supposed to be on the premises

Question 24

A01: standard of care

Answer 24

-s.2(2) 57 act. Take reasonable care to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe.
Laverton v kiapasha, dean and chapel - must take care of selves too
-s.1(4) 84 act: duty to take such care that is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by danger (keown)

Question 25

A03: standard of care

Answer 25

-Diff standard of care for visitors under the 57 act and trespassers under the 84 act. -visitors - occupiers have to do what is reasonable to keep safe, but trespassers what is reasonable in the circumstances -allows occ some flexibility eg if the circumstances mean they can’t do what is reasonable (eg the trespassers own act) then can avoid liability

Question 26

A01: different standard of care

Answer 26

57 act s.2(3)(a) occupier must be prepared for child to be less careful than adults and make sure the premises are reasonably safe for a child of that age. Jolly v Sutton, Glasgow v Taylor, Phipps v Rochester -S.2(3)(b) Occupier entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard against their own risks (lower standard) roles v Nathan

Question 27

A03: diff standards of care

Answer 27

-Differences in standard of care for children and professionals in the 54 act, but none for the 84 act. -57 act ensures those who are vulnerable are protected as the occupier has a greater standard of care -84 act trespassers are all treated the same no matter whether they are more vulnerable

Question 28

A01: warnings

Answer 28

57 act s.2(4)(a) Occupier not liable if they give a warning of danger but must be enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe otherwise may still be liable (Rae v mars, could see as dark pit) 84 act s.1(5) warnings can be a defence but must be shown to have taken reasonable steps in circumstances to give warning of the danger to discourage people. Westwood, fell through trap door when didn’t read the sign.

Question 29

A03 for warnings

Answer 29

-57 act states that signs must give a warning to keep visitors safe -wider interp of the 84 act as it is to take reasonable steps in the circumstances to warn of danger so more flexibility, depends on the circumstances, whether warning needs to be given

Question 30

Conclusion

Answer 30

-Differenced are fair bc it is right that trespassers should receive less protection than visitors as they have no right to be on premises. However the way the courts have interpreted the ac means that claims don’t often succeed so raises questions about the point of having the act