occupiers liability act 1984

Question 1

what is this act about

Answer 1

trespassers

Question 2

what is a trespasser

Answer 2

a person who has no permission to be on occupiers premises or a lawful visitors who’s gone beyond stay

Question 3

which old case set the precedent that there is no duty of care even to child trespassers

Answer 3

Adie vs Dumbreck - 1924 which was overruled by jolley vs Sutton

Question 4

what’s the leading case

Answer 4

herrington - an occupier owes a duty of common humanity and standard of care owed towards children is higher

Question 5

what does s1(1a)

Answer 5

says that claims can be brought by people other than lawful visitors for injuries due to the state of the premises

Question 6

s1(3) says that a duty of care is only owed to a trespasser if when ?

Answer 6

A) occupiers is aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists - rhind vs astbury - claimant ignored sign for private property held no obligation under the act to check for hidden dangers.

B) occupiers knows or has reasonable grounds to know trespassers are or might come into vicinity of danger - Higgs vs foster - occupiers were not liable as they could not have anticipated the officers presence

C)the dangers is the type of danger which the occupiers could reasonably provide protection against - Tomlinson vs congelton - council had warning signs to prohibit swimming - trespassers had to take responsibility for their actions

Question 7

what does s1(4) state

Answer 7

the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see the trespasser is not injured by the danger - keown vs Coventry - held that although the danger was appreciated it was not he state of the premises but what the boy was doing on it which was the problem