Occupiers Liability Evaluation Flashcards
(6 cards)
What are the positives of OLA 57?
Introduced to allow strong claims that weren’t compatible with negligence.
As a result, occupiers and particularly business owners are more careful to avoid liability so they make sure their premises are safe. Meaning fewer accidents and injuries.
It is very well written and clear - “a little gem of a statute”. Meaning clarity and trust in the law
Fits with society’s notion of fairness regarding children, professionals and independent contractors.
Limits claims to ensure we do not adopt a “compensation culture”, encouraging personal responsibility. Staples vs West Dorset DC and Edwards vs Sutton - Obvious danger
What are the negatives of OLA 57?
It does cost to keep premises safe
Insurance will cover the defendant but because of OLA claims insurance premiums are higher
For a small amount of fault, you could owe huge compensation if someone is seriously injured.
What are the reforms for OLA 57?
State run compensation scheme as adopted in New Zealand. Could be paid for by increased taxation which would cause havoc in society. Given the economic situation this is highly unlikely to be adopted.
Introduce no fault liability, whether a lawful visitor or a trespasser they should be able to claim compensation. Resulting in compulsory insurance being needed and premiums would greatly increase to reflect more successful claims. Would be unpopular with many and is unlikely to be adopted. Canada had a similar scheme.
Allow children to claim under OLA 84 but not adults. Possibly limit claims to being against businesses and not individual households?
Personable responsibility approach is sensible as it has made it more difficult for adults to claim. Arguably means no reforms are needed as it does not place an unfair burden on the occupier.
What are the positives of OLA 84 and how is it structured?
Paragraph 1:
Introduced as some people had good claims but couldn’t sue under negligence = not too great a burden
However, there is good reason for the act as it allows people who accidentally and unknowingly trespass deserve protection from injury - children (factories, train lines leading to deaths in the 1930’s etc)
Donoghue vs Folkstone Properties - “Where an adult deliberately risks injury, it will be ‘rare’ that they can be reasonably expected to offer protection”. Ratcliffe vs McConnell - Where there is an obvious danger, an adult won’t be able to sue = not too great of a burden
Paragraph 2:
As A Result, business owners are more careful as they want to avoid liability so ensure that their premises are safe resulting in fewer accidents and injuries (deterrent) - good for society and it is expected that premises will be reasonably safe (not 100%) but if everything reasonable is done = not liable (Platt vs Liverpool CC)
Paragraph 3:
In practice it does give fair results (Platt vs Liverpool cc) but there was a fear of placing too great a burden on the occupier and moving towards a compensation culture. However, the judicial approach towards this has been a sensible one, moving away from compensation culture, limiting liability and not over burdening the occupier. This is in line with public opinion - Severely limited liability which has prevented the floodgates from opening and moved away from compensation culture
If there’s time - Paragraph 4:
Use of defences to limit liability is good - Revill vs Newberry = Contributory negligence - Doesn’t place too great a burden on the occupier but it does for children (Donoghue vs Folkstone), Correct for society as protects children
What are the negatives of OLA 84 and how is it structured?
Paragraph 1:
Costs to keep premises safe, could have insurance to cover but the premiums are higher
Paragraph 2:
Small amount of fault could result in a huge claim = unfair + too great a burden (rare)
Paragraph 3:
When introduced the media said that it was immoral that the burden was too big and that burglars etc shouldn’t be able to claim - seems wrong that a burglar could potentially sue you, there should be no burden for trespassers?
What are the reforms for OLA 84?
State run compensation scheme as adopted in New Zealand. Could be paid for by increased taxation which would cause havoc in society. Given the economic situation this is highly unlikely to be adopted.
Introduce no fault liability, whether a lawful visitor or a trespasser they should be able to claim compensation. Resulting in compulsory insurance being needed and premiums would greatly increase to reflect more successful claims. Would be unpopular with many and is unlikely to be adopted. Canada had a similar scheme.
Allow children to claim under OLA 84 but not adults. Possibly limit claims to being against businesses and not individual households? - Basically, already done but we don’t want to reject very good adult claims
Personable responsibility approach is sensible as it has made it more difficult for adults to claim. Arguably means no reforms are needed as it does not place an unfair burden on the occupier.
