Occupiers Liability 1957

Question 1

What act can V’s claim under occupiers liability

Answer 1

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Question 2

Stage 1 - duty of care (occupier)

Answer 2

S.2(1) - occupier owes “a common duty of care” to visitors
Occupier - owner/tenant of the property. Lord. Denning set out the “sufficient control test” states that “wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over the premises they ought to realise that failure on their part to use care may result in injury to a person” (Wheat v Lacon)

Question 3

Stage 1 - duty of care (visitors and premises)

Answer 3

Premises - s.1(3)(a) defines premises as any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
Visitors - anyone who is invited or permitted onto the land (expressed or implied)

Question 4

Stage 1 - duty of care

Answer 4

S.2(2) - occupier has a “duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they were invited or permitted to be there”

Injury must be due to the state of the premises and not the activities of the visitor (Darby v National Trust)

Question 5

Stage 2 - breach of duty

Answer 5

Occupier must act reasonably - if they have done something the reasonable person would not have done, or failed to do something the reasonable man would do
This is limited to the purpose that the visitor is on the premises

Question 6

Side Rules

Answer 6

Children - s.2(3)(a) ~ expect children tot take less care than adults. Children don’t see risks or danger. Therefore the occupier has a higher duty of care over children (Jolley v London Borough of Sutton)
Allurements - land likely to attract children (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor)
Parental supervision - very young children (<5) should be in parents supervision so occupier may nit be liable (Phipps v Rochester Corporation)

Question 7

Experts or independent contractors (sides rules)

Answer 7

Experts - s.2(3)(b) ~ expert will ‘appreciate and guard against the risks in the exercise of their calling’ (Roles v Nathan)
Independent contractors - s.2(4)(b) ~ if damage due to negligence of IC then O may not be liable but 3 stages must be proven
1. Reasonable to entrusted IC (Hazledine v Daw)
2. Reasonable steps (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club)
3. Check the work was properly done (Hazledine v Daw)

Question 8

Defences

Answer 8

Warning signs - s.1(5) ~ warning sign must be effective and enable visitor to stay reasonably safe (Cotton v Derbyshire Council)
Consent - O not liable if visitor consented
Contributory negligence - Law Reform (contributory negligence) Act 1957 ~ damages can be reduced accordingly