Occupiers Liability Flashcards
(33 cards)
Which act covers visitors and which trespassers?
OLA 57: visitors.
OLA 84: trespassers.
Write an introduction for an occupiers liability question.
The law concerning the duty that occupiers owe to visitors has been codified into the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (OLA 57). Similarly, the lesser duty that occupiers ow to non-visitors and trespassers- those who enter the premises without invitation and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known, practically objected to (Lord Dunedin in ADDIE v DUMBREK)- is codified in the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (OLA 84). These acts run alongside the common law in application, and in the present scenario there are a number of claims that potentially trigger one or more of these statutory provisions. This is because several of the parties are injured by the state of the land in question as opposed to harm consequent of general negligence.
A non-visitor/trespasser is defined in which case?
Lord Dunedin in ADDIE v DUMBREK: someone who enters the premises without invitation and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known, practically objected to.
How do you determine if there is an occupier?
Not defined in the act, but WHEAT v LACON: any person with a sufficient degree of control over the land may have the duty imposed upon them.
Can be multiple occupiers: WHEAT.
Independent contractors may be sued: AMF INTERNATIONAL v MAGNET BOWLING.
Common areas: MOLONEY v LAMBETH: landlord and council liable.
Absent owners: HARRIS v BIRKENHEAD: actual occupation not required.
Which case holds there may be multiple occupiers simultaneously?
WHEAT v LACON.
Which case holds that independent contractors may be sued?
AMF INTERNATIONAL v MAGNET BOWLING.
Which case holds that for common areas the council/landlord is liable?
MOLONEY v LAMBETH.
Which case holds that absent owners may be sued and that actual occupation is not required?
HARRIS v BIRKENHEAD.
How do you determine if there is a premises?
Premises is defined at s1(3)(a) OLA 57: any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
Has been interpreted widely: WHEELER v COPAS: even a ladder.
COLTMAN v BIBBY TANKERS: ship.
What are the five ways a claimant could be a visitor?
EXPRESS PERMISSION IMPLIED PERMISSION LAWFUL AUTHORITY CONTRACTUAL PERMISSION DOCTRINE OF ALLUREMENT: CHILDREN.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY? Public not covered by either act. Private by OLA 84.
What case holds that permission may be implied?
LOWERY v WALKER; prior toleration created an implied visitor access.
How can permission be limited?
BY AREA: PEARSON v COLEMAN; circus. THE CALGARTH: at the scale of the house.
BY TIME: STONE v TAFFE: after hours party goer still a visitor.
BY PURPOSE: R v SMITH & JONES; if invitee exceeds reason for initial invite.
Claimants must know the limits of the authority.
Which section discusses lawful authority as a type of permission?
s2(6) OLA 57: emergency services/those with a warrant enter as visitors.
Note: HIGGS v FOSTER: police must have a warrant.
Which section discusses contractual permission?
s5(1) OLA 57.
If deemed to be a visitor, does the occupier owe them a duty of care?
Under s2(1) OLA 57 they owe a duty. Duty is stated at s2(2): must take reasonable steps to ensure the visitor is safe using premises for the invited purpose.
i.e. WARD v TESCO: someone shopping should be safe whilst shopping.
How do you determine if this duty has been breached?
LATIMER v AEC: an objective test; must be reasonable in all the circumstances.
e.g. CLARE v PERRY: exit hotel by wall; hotel not in breach.
LAVERTON v KIAPASHA: had taken reasonable steps to ensure floor not slippery.
Are there any special factors to consider? What are these factors?
CHILDREN: s2(3)(a).
& DOCTRINE OF ALLUREMENT.
EXPERTS: s2(3)(b).
WARNINGS: s2(4)(a).
What does s2(3)(a) state an occupier must be with regards to children?
They must be prepared for the fact that children are less careful than adults.
How does the doctrine of allurement work?
GLASGOW CORP v TAYLOR: may change from trespasser to visitor; ate toxic fruit; council liable.
But note: PHIPPS v ROCHESTER: occupiers are entitles to assume parents are supervising their children.
UNLESS: an area where supervision is known to be less: PERRY v BUTLINS.
s2(3)(b) holds what with regards to experts on the premises?
There is no need to protect them against risks incidental to their job.
ROLES v NATHAN: chimney sweep didn’t turn off boiler.
How do warnings impact upon a potential breach?
s2(4)(a): only sufficient to satisfy the duty if they are in all the circumstances enough to make the visitor reasonably safe.
ROLES v NATHAN.
Obvious dangers may not require warnings: STAPLES v WEST DORSET.
How can liability be excluded?
SHIFTING LIABILITY TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS: s2(4)(b).
EXCLUSION/EXEMPTION CLAUSES: s2(1).
How can liability be shifted to independent contractors: s2(4)(b)?
If the IC has caused the danger and the occupier has:
- ACTED REASONABLY IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
- CHECKED THE CONTRACTOR WAS COMPETENT.
- ENSURED THE WORK WAS DONE PROPERLY.
WOOSWARD v HASTINGS: should have checked as the work wasn’t technical.
Contrast to HESELTINE v DAW: lift engineering too complicated to warrant checking.
How can liability be excluded by an exclusion clause: s2(1)?
Occupers are free to exclude/limit liability in so far as they are able to do so.
As such, they are subject to UCTA 77 and the rules governing exemption clauses found there.
s2(1) UCTA: cant exclude death or personal injury.
s1(3)(b) UCTA: act applies to duties arising from occupation for business purposes, or for things done in the course of a business; s1(3)(a).
