Occupiers Liability 1957

Question 1

Concerned with…

Answer 1

Lawful visitors

Question 2

Definition

Answer 2

S1 (1) OLA ‘the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done by them’

Question 3

OCCUPIER

Answer 3

Wheat v E.Lacon ‘wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an occupier’

S1(2) occupiers and visitors treated as such under common law

Question 4

PREMISES

Answer 4

S1(3)(a) ‘any fixed or movable structure, including any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft’

Question 5

COMMON DUTY OF CARE

Answer 5

S2(2) to take ‘such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited’

• Visitor is to be kept reasonably safe, not premises necessarily

Question 6

LAWFUL VISITORS - section

Answer 6

S1(2) someone treated as an invitee or licensee - express or implied

Question 7

LAWFUL VISITORS - types

Answer 7

Invitee - express permission to be there
Licensee - implied permission to be there (delivery driver/ postman)
Contractual (bought a ticket to an event)
Statutory duty (police)

Question 8

CHILDREN - section

Answer 8

S2(3)(a) an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

Question 9

CHILDREN - doctrine

Answer 9

Doctrine of Allurement (Jolley v Sutton)
- occupier expected to take greater care

Facts: 14 year old broke spine when playing in a rotting ship which collapsed on him. Council should have realised this was alluring and taken reasonable steps to remove it

Question 10

CHILDREN - parental

Answer 10

Parental Responsibility
- safety of little children primarily rests with parents
- Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955

Question 11

SKILLED WORKERS - section

Answer 11

S2(3)(b) occupier may expect specialist visitor will be aware/ protect themselves against risk within the exercise of their calling

Question 12

SKILLED WORKERS - case

Answer 12

Roles v Nathan (1963)
- two chimney sweeps warned of danger of cleaning while boiler is switched on
- both killed by toxic fumes
- warning sufficient in keeping sweeps ‘reasonably safe’ (s2(4))
- risks involved in case were incidental to profession

Question 13

DISCHARGE DUTY - warning section

Answer 13

S2(4)(a) warning of potential danger
- only sufficient if ‘in all circumstances, it is enough to enable that visitor to be reasonably safe’

Question 14

DISCHARGE DUTY - case

Answer 14

Rae v Mars (UK) Ltd 1990
- where danger is extreme or unusual, a warning is not enough. Barriers or additional notice needed

Question 15

DISCHARGE DUTY - exclusion clauses

Answer 15

S2(1) and S2(2) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury

Question 16

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS - section

Answer 16

S2(4)(b)
Where damage is caused by a danger due to faulty execution of work by an IC, occupier is not liable

Question 17

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS - D not liable if…

Answer 17

In all circumstances, they:

1. Acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an IC
2. Took reasonable steps to ensure competence (Bottomley v Todmorden C.C)
3. Took reasonable care to check the work was properly done

Haseldine v Daw (1941)
Occupiers acted reasonably, engineers were liable to the visitor injured by a crashing lift

Question 18

VOLENTI…

Answer 18

NON FIT INJURIA
S2(5) occupier will not be liable where a visitors injuries arise from ‘risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor’

Question 19

VOLENTI - case

Answer 19

Geary v JD Wetherspoons PLC
- C freely chose to slide down the bannister, aware of its danger