Occupiers’ Liability Flashcards
(18 cards)
Who qualifies as a “visitor” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
A. Only people invited verbally
B. Anyone who enters with the occupier’s express or implied permission
C. Trespassers who cause no damage
D. Employees of a contractor only
B. Anyone who enters with the occupier’s express or implied permission
Explanation: Under s.1(2) of OLA 1957, a visitor includes those lawfully on the premises, with either express or implied permission.
What is the standard of care owed to a visitor under the 1957 Act?
A. To take reasonable care to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe
B. To prevent all accidents at any cost
C. No duty unless warned
D. To make premises completely hazard-free
A. To take reasonable care to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe
Explanation: s.2(2) OLA 1957 sets this as the core duty — it’s about reasonable safety, not absolute safety.
A supermarket customer slips on a freshly mopped floor without a warning sign. Is the store liable?
A. No — the cleaner is liable
B. No — customers must watch where they walk
C. Yes — occupiers are strictly liable for wet floors
D. Yes — they failed to take reasonable steps to warn or protect
D. Yes — they failed to take reasonable steps to warn or protect
Explanation: Ward v Tesco confirmed liability where no sign or barrier was used after cleaning.
A schoolchild on a class trip is injured by a sharp railing. What special duty does the school owe?
A. To take greater care than for adults
B. To make the school entirely risk-free
C. None — children assume risk on trips
D. A higher duty of strict liability
A. To take greater care than for adults
Explanation: s.2(3)(a) OLA 1957 — children may be less careful than adults, so more care is required (Glasgow Corp v Taylor).
When is a duty owed to trespassers under the 1984 Act?
A. Always
B. Only if the trespasser is under 18
C. If the trespasser pays compensation
D. If the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass
D. If the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass
Explanation: s.1(3) OLA 1984 sets a three-limb test — including awareness of the danger and the likelihood of trespassers encountering it.
A child climbs through a gap in a fence into a railway yard and is electrocuted. Is the rail company liable?
A. Yes — children are always owed a duty
B. No — electricity is a natural risk
C. Yes — the company knew children were likely to trespass
D. No — trespassers have no rights
C. Yes — the company knew children were likely to trespass
Explanation: In British Railways Board v Herrington, the House of Lords recognised a duty due to foreseeability and obvious danger.
A drunk adult ignores multiple warning signs and injures himself falling into an unlit trench. Is the occupier liable?
A. Yes — warning signs are irrelevant
B. No — no duty is owed to intoxicated trespassers
C. No — the warning was sufficient and obvious
D. Yes — signs must be accompanied by physical barriers
C. No — the warning was sufficient and obvious
Explanation: If danger is obvious and the risk is willingly accepted, no duty arises (Ratcliff v McConnell).
Under the 1984 Act, what is the nature of the duty owed?
A. Strict liability for all harm
B. Duty to make premises safe at all times
C. Duty to take reasonable care in all circumstances
D. Duty to take reasonable steps to protect against known dangers
D. Duty to take reasonable steps to protect against known dangers
Explanation: s.1(4) OLA 1984 — the duty is to take reasonable care to protect from known dangers, not to make the premises entirely safe.
Which of the following is a valid defence under the OLA 1957 and 1984?
A. Consent to risk (volenti non fit injuria)
B. Duress
C. Mistaken belief of the visitor
D. Lack of injury
A. Consent to risk (volenti non fit injuria)
Explanation: Consent can be a complete defence where the visitor/trespasser knowingly accepts the risk (Ratcliff v McConnell).
A visitor ignores a clear warning sign and is injured. When might this negate liability?
A. Always — warnings remove all duties
B. If the warning was clear and sufficient
C. If the injury was unforeseeable
D. If the visitor was below the age of 16
B. If the warning was clear and sufficient
Explanation: A sufficient warning may discharge the duty under s.2(4)(a) OLA 1957 (Roles v Nathan).
Can contributory negligence apply to occupiers’ liability claims?
A. No — liability is strict
B. Yes — but only for child visitors
C. Yes — if the visitor failed to take reasonable care
D. No — it applies only to car accidents
C. Yes — if the visitor failed to take reasonable care
Explanation: Contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 can reduce damages where the claimant was partly at fault.
A climber trespasses in a disused building despite multiple warnings and gets injured. What defence may apply?
A. Occupier’s immunity
B. Negligence by third party
C. Volenti
D. Absolute discharge of duty
C. Volenti
Explanation: Voluntary acceptance of a known risk may be a valid defence where the danger was obvious and access unauthorised.
Can an occupier exclude liability for personal injury under the 1957 Act?
A. Yes, always
B. No — it’s automatically excluded
C. Only in residential premises
D. Only if allowed under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
D. Only if allowed under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Explanation: Under UCTA 1977, occupiers cannot exclude liability for personal injury due to negligence unless the term is reasonable — and for business premises, personal injury exclusions are usually invalid (s.2(1)).
Can an occupier exclude liability to a trespasser under the 1984 Act?
A. Yes — if clearly stated
B. No — the Act forbids this
C. Yes — but only for economic loss
D. No — because the Act implies liability in all cases
A. Yes — if clearly stated
Explanation: The 1984 Act is silent on exclusion clauses, so liability can be excluded in principle, especially in non-commercial settings.
A sign at a country park says: “Use at your own risk.” What must be considered for this to exclude liability?
A. Whether it was in capital letters
B. Whether the visitor read the sign
C. Whether the park is public or private
D. Whether the sign clearly and reasonably warned of the risks
D. Whether the sign clearly and reasonably warned of the risks
Explanation: For an exclusion to be effective, the warning must make clear what liability is being excluded, and it must be fair and reasonable.
Can an occupier exclude liability to a child visitor under OLA 1957?
A. Yes — using a parental waiver form
B. No — children are always owed a higher duty
C. Yes — but only where reasonable under UCTA 1977
D. No — exclusion clauses are invalid for minors
C. Yes — but only where reasonable under UCTA 1977
Explanation: Exclusion of liability for children is possible only if reasonable, assessed under UCTA — courts will consider the child’s vulnerability and awareness of risk.
Under OLA 1957, when can an occupier avoid liability for the actions of an independent contractor?
A. If the contractor has a contract
B. If the occupier exercised reasonable care in selecting and checking the contractor’s work
C. If the work was done outside business hours
D. If the contractor signs a liability waiver
B. If the occupier exercised reasonable care in selecting and checking the contractor’s work
Explanation: Under s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957, an occupier can discharge their duty by showing they reasonably entrusted the work and took steps to ensure it was done competently and safely (Haseldine v Daw for technical work; Bottomley v Todmorden where failure to vet led to liability).
A child is injured despite a clear warning sign. What must be considered when assessing if the warning was sufficient?
A. Whether the sign was readable by a child of that age
B. Whether the parent understood the sign
C. Whether the sign was authorised by statute
D. Whether the sign was bilingual
A. Whether the sign was readable by a child of that age
Explanation: Warnings must be appropriate to the visitor, including children’s age and understanding. In Moloney v Lambeth, the court stressed that simply having a warning is not enough if a child could not comprehend it.
