Occupiers liability Flashcards Preview

GDL > Occupiers liability > Flashcards

Flashcards in Occupiers liability Deck (19)
Loading flashcards...
1

Define “occupier”

Someone who has sufficient control over the premises” Wheat v Lacon

2

Define “visitor”, which Act?

A visitor is anyone with express or implied permission to be on the property. Occupiers Liability Act 1957

3

Loss by the visitor must have been caused by what for a claim under occupiers liability?

The state of the premises s1(3)a

4

What is the duty of care for visitors?

The duty of care is to “take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises”

5

How can the duty be discharged where contractors are concerned?

1. The work was construction, maintenance or repair
2. It was reasonable to expect the contractor to carry out the task
3. Reasonable care was taken to check the contractors work
s2 (4)(b)

6

Which two cases contrast on delegation to contractors?

Hazeldine v Daw- Reasonable steps were taken but the work was too complex. No liability for occupier

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings- No reasonable steps were taken to check contractors work- liability incurred

7

Children may be allured by dangerous things, raising the standard of care they are entitled to

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

8

Especially young children should be supervised

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

9

What is the rule for warning signs?

S2(4)of the Occupiers liability Act provides that if signs are specific enough, the standard of care is met

10

When can liability be excluded?

If there is a clearly worded notice veering the loss, which is reasonable under UCTA (White v Blackmore)

11

In what year was the OLA covering trespassers?

1984

12

When does a duty exist under OLA 1984?

1. When the occupier is aware of the danger
2., When the occupier has reasonable grounds to believe a person is in the vicinity of the danger
3. When the risk is one that the occupier may be expected to protect against

13

Donoghue v Folkstone Properties

No liability. The occupier had no grounds to believe that people would swim off Folkstone harbour at night

14

Rhine v Astbury

The occupier had no grounds to believe there was an obstroction in the lake

15

A duty will still be owed if the trespasser was on the land for criminal purpose

Revill v Newbery

16

What is the standard of are under the OLA 1984?

"Such care as is reasonable in the circumstances"

17

In what case did the HoL end a "litigation culture" regarding trespass and quadriplegia?

Tomlinson v Congleton

18

Skilled claimants can be expected to guard against defects relevant to their calling

Roles v Nathan

19

Warning signs can show that an occupier has met the standard of care. True or false?

True