Occupiers' Liability Flashcards
(44 cards)
Which act deals with lawful visitors?
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Which act deals with trespassers?
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Which section accounts for the meaning of a premises?
Section.1 (2)
Which section accounts for the duty of care owed by an occupier to their lawful visitors?
Section.2 (2)
Which section accounts for child visitors?
Section.2 (3)(a)
Which section accounts for skilled/professional visitors?
Section.2 (3)(b)
Which section accounts for warning notices as a defense for an occupier regarding lawful visitors?
Section.2 (4)(a)
57 act- Name the case and facts which defined an occupier
-Wheat v Lacon
-The pub manager was an occupier because he lived at the pub, therefore he was in control, but he was not the owner of the premises
57 act- What is the key concept when deciding whether someone is an occupier?
Control ( there is no statutory definition)
57 act- Name the case and facts which stated to be an occupier, there is no need for physical occupation
-Harris v Birkenhead
-a local council was held to be the occupier of an abandoned building, even though they had never entered it
57 act- List examples of what is considered to be a premises
-Land
-Buildings
-Houses
-Vehicles
-Fixed structures
-moveable structures such as: lifts, ladders, bouncy castles
57 act- State the point of law and facts in Geary v Wetherspoon?
- Claimant slid down the banister of a staircase in spoons and injured herself badly
Point of Law: A duty of care will only cover dangers due to the state of the premises
57 act- What does section.2(2) state about an occupiers duty of care towards lawful visitors?
‘To take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose for which he/she is invited to be there’
57 act- Outline the facts and court decision from Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway
-Customer slipped in a takeaway on a rainy day and broke her ankle
-The owners had fitted slip resistant tiles and regularly mopped the floor on rainy days
-Court decided the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe
57 act- In addition to the common duty of care in s.2(2), what duty is owed to child visitors?
A higher standard of care
57 act- Why are children owed a higher standard of care in s.2(3)(a)?
Children are more vulnerable than adults and are less likely to appreciate risks that an adult would, also children tend to be attracted to danger
57 act- Outline the facts and court ruling in Phipps v Rochester corporation
-A 5yr old was injured playing on an open ground owned by the council
Court ruling: the council was not liable because the child was too young to have been out playing alone, the fault lay with the parents
57 act- Outline the facts and court ruling in Jolley v Sutton
- A 14yr old boy found an abandoned boat on the council estate where they lived and decided to repair it. while C was working on it,the boat fell on him, leaving him paralysed
Court ruling: the council had beached their duty of care by failing to move the boat
-Boat would be attractive to children so they could have foreseen a risk of danger
57 act- What does section.2(3)(b) say regarding an occupier and professional?
An occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his trade will appreciate and guard against any special risks which they ought to know about through their work
57 act- Outline the facts and law from Roles v Nathan
-Two chimney sweeps died from inhaling poisonous fumes, despite being warned about the danger
law: the claim failed because this was exactly the sort of special risk arising from their job which they should have been familiar with and guarded against
Which section accounts for defenses to a claim by a lawful visitor regarding an independent contractor?
Section.2 (4)(b)
57 act- Which 3 conditions must be met in order for an occupier to have a defense under S.2(4)(b)
-It was reasonable to hire a contractor
-Reasonable precautions were taken to ensure the contractor was competent
-If the nature of the work allows, reasonable checks were taken to inspect the work
57 act- Outline the facts and law in Haseldine v Daw
- C was killed when a lift plunged to the ground after being negligently repaired by an independent contractor
- Occupier was not liable for the death as they had fulfilled their duty of care
57 act- Outline the facts and law in Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
- Child was injured on school steps which had been left icy after workmen had cleared the snow off them earlier
- Occupier was liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check work had been done properly and danger should have been obvious to them
