Occupiers Liability 1957 A03 Flashcards
(13 cards)
What are the 4 potential WDPs for OLA 1957
Occupier + Visitor
Children
Warning signs + obvious danger
Independent Contractors
+P1: Wide interpretation of terms occupier + premises fair on CL… (case)
Wheat v Lacon CL could choose between managers of the pub or the owner → makes to easier to succeed as CL can choose who is best equipped to provide compensation = fair
-DP1: Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon thought it was fair to blame the occupier who has ‘control’ even if not directly responsible….
suing the person who is ‘best equipped’ for damages might mean the occupier which is unfair as they may have limited control over the actual situation
WDP1: This unfairness can be sen in Harris v Birkenhead where the council were liable despite
the tenant causing the negligence, however Wheat v Lacon clarified the law saying that an occupier can counter-sue if another party was partly responsible which is fair on the occupier
+P2: s.2(3)(a) clarifying that occupiers have a duty to make the premises reasonable safe for children is..
practical as the law is accounting for the unpredictable nature of children and is justified to owe a higher DoC to children as they are more vulnerable
+DP2: Glasgow Corp v Taylor council were liable for the child’s death demonstrates how the law…
holds occupiers to a high standard to be extra vigilant towards children = fair and justified encouraging occupiers to not have risks of danger on their land
+WDP2: Phipps v Rochester puts responsibility back onto parents which is a
public policy decision and protects defendants, df had taken all reasonable steps to prevent public entry onto land, prevents parents from escaping liability = fair
+P3: Warning signs have to be sufficient in all circumstances to absolve the df of liability…
protects claimants by holding occupiers to a higher standard to make the danger obvious = fair
+DP3: Darby v National Trust - df not liable as had no duty to warn against…
swimming in pond when risk of drowning was obvious, reasonably protects occupiers, shifts blame onto the claimants for being volenti - promotes fairness
-WDP3: s.2(1) exclusion of liability to those who
exceed perms is unfair as it allows occupiers to escape liability HOWEVER cannot be absolved of liability for death which protects cl
+P4: s.2(4)(b) creates justice as the occupier can be not liable if they can prove they have
chosen a reputable tradesperson to make the premises safe and done necessary checks on the works which promotes fairness for the df
+DP4: Haseldine v Daw
further protects occupiers highlighting that they are not experts and have some degree of faith in the contractor to be competent which is fair as the cl can instead sue the contractor
+WDP4: The law creates balance as it will not favour the occupier if it is obvious their premises…. (case)
are still dangerous and they have failed to check like in Woodward v Hastings where it the danger was obvious with the steps covered in snow = fair
