Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort - Exam cards > Occupiers Liability > Flashcards

Occupiers Liability Flashcards

(61 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Occupier owes common duty of care to all visitors to premises

A

S2(1) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Wheat v Lacon

A

Any person with a sufficient degree of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Collier v Anglian Waters

A

A premises can have multiple occupiers. Particularly relevant as can be joint occupier with independent contractors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Ferguson v Walsh

A

Cna be a visitor to one occupier and trespasser to another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Moloney v lambeth

A

Landlord liable for communal areas, e.g. stairs in flats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Harris v Birkenhead

A

Landlord still liable even if have not exercised control over property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

AMF International v Magnet Bowlers

A

Occupier and independent contractor can jointly occupy the premises. This means they can be jointly liable for damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are premises?

A

S1(3)(a) OLA 1957 - any fixed or moveable structure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Wheeler v Copas

A

Ladder was premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

A party can be a visitor in 4 ways;

A

Express permission
Implied permission
Lawful authority
Contractual licensee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The Calgarath

A

Where someone is denied permission to enter certain areas they become trespassers in relation to these areas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Pearson v Coleman Bros

A
  • Child was licensee for premises as no notice denying entry

- May have express permission to enter land, then implied permission extends to other areas unless revoked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Stoen v taff

A

Permission can be limited by time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Smith & Jones

A

Entered with purpose of theft, so whilst normally a visitor was trespasser due to purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Lowery v Walker

A

IMplied permission created by frequent use, and not excluded, therefore entered land as visitor despite being private land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Lawful authority - Statute reference

A

S2(6)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Contractual authority

A

S5(1) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the standard of care?

A

S2(2) - All reasoanble care to make sure the visitor is reasonably safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Laverton v Kiapasha

A

D took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury, therefore was not liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What section states chidlren will have an enhanced standard of care?

A

S2(3)(a) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Glasgow v Taylor

A

Doctrine of allurement - When the land has on it something which is attractive to children a higher standard of care will be imposed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Phipps v Rochester Corp

A
  • If occupier is entitled to assumed that parents will be accompanying the chidlren then the standard owed is lower.
  • If child is young then there is an expectation that they should have been accompanied. However if child older then there is an argument that they should have known better
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Perry v Butlins

A

Occupier knew children would be unaccompanied on the premises so standard of care due was high

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the statutory reference for a lower standard of care for experts?

A

S2(3)(b) OLA 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Roles v Nathan
- Lower standard of care due to professional chimney sweeps | - Occupier gave them warning of risk so not liable
26
What is the reference that states the occupier may be laible for hiring of independet contractors?
S2(4)(b); - Reasonable to appoint a contractor - Contractor was suitable - Supervised so work was done properly
27
Haseldine v Daw
Not laible for technical work which could not have reasonably been supervised
28
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Work not supervised and reasonable that it should have been
29
Salmon v Seafarer
Occupier liable for IC injury if it is created by negligence
30
Gwilliam v West Hearts
Occupier liable for damage if contractor does not have insurance
31
S2(4)(a) - Warning notices
Means the duty of care may be met if the warning is sufficient to keep the party reasonably safe Warning must be sufficiently specific, cant just say warning danger
32
Roles v Nathan
Warning notice met duty of care
33
Staples v West Dorset
Do not have to warn of obvious dangers
34
White v Blackmore
- Warning notice did not constitute knowledge and therefore consent to risk - However is warning is specific and informs claimant of risk, then can be defence of volenti
35
Simms v Leigh
Rugby player consented to the risk, and the risk was not abnormal
36
Contributory negligence possible under OLA 1957
S2(3) OLA 1957
37
VOlenti is possible under OLA 1957
S2(1) and S2(5) OLA 1957
38
What section allows exclusion clauses?
S2(1) OLA 1957 however only as far a S3 allows
39
UCTA 1977 in relation to exclusion clauses
S3 - CAn only exclude as far as reasonable (s11) S1(1)(c) - Cannot exclude negligence S1(3) - only applies to business liability S2(1) - Cannot exclude for death and PI S2(2) can exclude liabiltiy for property damage as far as is reasoanble
40
BRB v Herrington
Cannot exclude for common humanity
41
Damages under OLA 1957;
- Property damage | - PI
42
Damages under OLA 1984 - S1(9)
- PI | - Mental damage
43
Under OLA 1984 who is a duty of care owed to?
Non-visitors
44
Robert Addie v Dumbreck
Trespasser if; - Without permission - Presence is unknown - Presence objected to
45
When is a duty of care owed S1(3)(a-c) 1984
D - Aware of danger P - Proximity of potential trepasser P - Reasonable for occupier to protect trespasser
46
What is standard of duty of care?
S1(4) to take reasoanble care to protect agaisnt injury
47
Tomlinson v Congleton
Took reasoanble care in preventing injury through sign prohibiting swimming. Did not have to prevent diving as danger was obvious
48
How does a warning affect a duty of care?
May mean duty is satisfied depending on nature of sign - S1(5)
49
Ratcliffe v McConnell
Duty of care met in protecting agaisnt harm by putting up sign and erecting a fence - lower duty of care due under the 1984 act
50
Titchner v BRB
Where defendant is fully aware of risk from warning sign and decides to proceed anyway a defence of volenti will apply. (case of 15 year old boy hit by train)
51
Defences availabel under OLA 1984
- VOlenti - Contrib neg - Exclusion clauses
52
Exclusion clauses under OLA 1984
Silent as to exemption clauses, though cannot exclude for common humanity - BRB v Herington
53
Revill v Newberry
Contrib neg more likely under 1984 act as already negliegnet to a degree by engagning in illegal activity
54
Swain v Puri
Not laible for harm to trespassing chidlren as no knowledge of previous trespasser and fence erected to prevetn trespass
55
Scott v ABP
2 separate incidents of children injured from train surfing. Not laible for first injury as no knowledge, but liabel for second as knew of risk
56
Ashdown v Samuel Williams
An occupier can exclude liability through a clear and unequivocal notice excluding liability.
57
Haley v LEB
Sign not sufficient to keep a blind man reasonably safe, so breach of duty. Individual disabilities are a factor.
58
Structure of occupiers question
I Passionately Detest Other People's Violent Dogs. Some Bitches Carry Rabid Dog Rabies
59
Edwards v Railway Executive
If trespass is repeated this does not necessarily mean there is a licence. Depends on nature of trespass, steps taken to exclude, and reasonable expectation of licence
60
Young v Kent CC
Kids on roof was a known trespass so occupier liable
61
Cooke v Midland
Implied permission not sufficiently revoked by putting up a warning sign in relation to kids

Tort - Exam cards (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions