Occupiers Liability

Question 1

Definition of occupiers liability

Answer 1

Occupiers liability law deals with the situations where someone suffers injury/damage due to “the state of the premises”.

Question 2

Define an Occupier
+ case example

Answer 2

As interpreted: someone who has ‘sufficient control’ of the premises.
Case example to support: Wheat v Lacon

Question 3

Wheat v Lacon

Answer 3

• Shows the definition of an occupier
• Paying guest in the pub fell down the unlit stairs-Emplyee + employer both
  occupiers as they had CONTROL of the premises

Question 4

Define premises

Answer 4

s.1(3) OLA 1957 says that premises include any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle, aircraft.

Question 5

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Answer 5

For claims brought by lawful visitors:
Invitee, licensee, contractual permission, statutory right.

Question 6

s.2(1) - OLA 1957

Answer 6

The occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors.

Question 7

s.2(2) - OLA 1957

Answer 7

The standard of care is that the occupier must take reasonable care to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

Question 8

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme

Answer 8

• Shows s.2(2)
• Customer slipped even though the owners regularly mopped the floor and used anti slip tiles to keep it dry.
  -Owners had taken reasonable precautions to ensure the safety.
  Did not have to make the shop completely safe.

Question 9

Rochester Cathedral V Debell

Answer 9

• Shows s.2(2)
• Claimant tripped on a bollard in the pavement.
• No liability as tripping and falling are everyday occurences and the risk is only reasonably foreseeable if there is a real source of danger.

Question 10

s.2(3)a) - OLA 1957

Answer 10

• Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and make sure premises are reasonably safe for a child of that age.

Question 11

Glasgow v Taylor

Answer 11

• Shows s.2(3)a)
• 7yr old died of poisonous berries picked from shrub in public park, not fenced off + enticing to child.
• Therefore council held liable

Question 12

Jolley v Sutton

Answer 12

• Shows s.2(3)a)
• 14yr old boy was injured playing on an abandoned boat.
  foreseeable children and young people would play on a boat and be injured.
  If allurement exists, but is not reasonably foreseeable, there is NO LIABILITY.

Question 13

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Answer 13

• 5yr old injured playing on open ground owned by the council
• Council not liable as the child too young to be out playing alone

Question 14

s.2(3)b) - OLA 1957

Answer 14

The occupier is entitled to expect that professional visitors will guard their own risks.

Question 15

Roles V Nathan

Answer 15

• Shows s.2(3)b)
• 2 chimney sweeps died from poisonus fumes despite being warned about the danger.
  Not liable as they should have been aware of that danger.

Question 16

s.2(4)a) - to avoid liability OLA 1957

Answer 16

The occupier will not be held liable if they given a warning of the danger.
Must be enough to keep visitor reasonable safe.

Question 17

Rae V Mars

Answer 17

• Shows s.2(4)a)
• The claimant fell into a deep pit inside a dark shed.
  There was a warning, but it wasn’t effective because the danger was too serious and the warning wasn’t visible or clear enough.
• Therefore liable.

Question 18

s.2(4)b) - to avoid liability OLA 1957

Answer 18

Occupier not liable if danger arise due to the work of an independent contractor if:
- Reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor
- Occupier checked contractor competent
- Occupier checked work done properly (unless too specialised to check)

Question 19

s.2(4)b) - reasonable to entrust
Haseldine v Daw

Answer 19

• H was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft, after a negligent repair by an independent contractor.
• Occupiers not liable as given that technical knowledge was required

Question 20

s.2(4)b) - checked competence
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket club

Answer 20

• Guest injured during firework display, club hired team to put on the display and team failed to take proper care.
• Club liable as failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractor.

Question 21

s.2(4)b) - checked work done properly
Woodward v mayor of hastings

Answer 21

• Child slipped on icy steps despite workmen having cleared the steps earlier
• Occupiers liable as they should have taken reasonable steps to check the work had been properly done and the danger should have been obvious to them.

Question 22

s.2(1) - exclusion clause

Answer 22

The occupier can restrict modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise.

Question 23

s.2(5) - Defence of consent

Answer 23

Full defence if proved C willingly took a risk of harm with full knowledge and understanding of that risk.

Question 24

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Answer 24

For claims brought by trespassers.

Question 25

Define a tresspasser

Answer 25

A trespasser is someone who enters land or premises without permission, or goes beyond the scope of their permission.

Question 26

Harvey v Plymouth - shows no permission to be on premises for that purpose

Answer 26

- Man ran across council-owned land (used as an open space) while running away after drinking, tripped over a hidden drop and was injured. - Council had allowed general use of the land but not reckless or risky behaviour. - He had exceeded the scope of permission, so was a trespasser. The council was not liable, only owed duty to protect from known dangers, not from someone acting recklessly.

Question 27

s.1(1a)

Answer 27

- Claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of the of the premises.

Question 28

s.1(1a) - OLA 1984 Keown v Coventry

Answer 28

- 11-year-old boy climbed up the outside of a hospital fire escape and fell. He was trespassing, as he was using the structure in an unsafe and unauthorised way. -Premises were not dangerous the danger came from how the boy used them, occupier not liable.

Question 29

s.1(3)a) - OLA 1984

Answer 29

- Duty only owed if occupier aware of danger or reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

Question 30

Rhind v Astbury

Answer 30

- Shows s.1(3)a) - Ignored no swimming signs & jumped in lake at waterpark, hit head on submerged fibreglass container not visible from the surface, suffering harm. - Occupiers not liable as unaware of hidden dangers.

Question 31

s.1(3)b) - OLA 1984

Answer 31

- Duty only owed if occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to know that trespassers are or might come into the vicinity of the danger.

Question 32

Higgs v Foster

Answer 32

- Police officer conducting surveillance, entered occupiers land without permission and fell in inspection pit, suffering injuries. - Occupier not liable because they didn’t know or expect trespassers to be on the land.

Question 33

s.1(3)c) - OLA 1984

Answer 33

- Duty only owed if the danger is the type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against.

Question 34

Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 34

- Clear warning signs "no swimming" yet dived in shallow water, severe spinal injuries. - Council was not liable, danger was obvious, and he had ignored warnings. The risk came from his own actions, not the state of the premises.

Question 35

s.1(4) - OLA 1984

Answer 35

- Duty is to take such career as is reasonable in the circumstances to see the trespasser is not injured by the danger.

Question 36

s.1(5) - OLA 1984

Answer 36

- Warnings good defence along as warning sufficient.

Question 37

Westwood v Post Office [1973]

Answer 37

- Claimant was employee who entered a room marked "Only authorised personnel", was not authorised, but entered anyway and was injured by an unguarded machine. the door was unlocked but clearly labelled. - Not liable as clear sign.