Occupiers Liablity 1984 Flashcards
(16 cards)
Occupiers liability 1984
Tresspass
Tresspasser
Someone who exceeds permission
Occupier
The defendent - Owner or control of the land
Premisis
Fixed or movable structure including a vessel and even a ladder.
- Rhind v Astbury waterpark
the Defendant is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe exists
- Higgs v Foster
Know or believe that a trespasser could be in the vicinity of the danger
Ratcliff v McConnell
The risk must be one where some protection should be offered
There is no need to protect against an obvious danger - Especially when adults
Tomlinson v Congleton
D is not expected to spend lost of money
Donohuge v FolkStone
Time of the day/ Time of the year
Cole v Davis
The harm must be caused by the state of the land
Harm must be foreseable
Jolly v Sutton
Baldaccino v West Wittering
Children are owed the same standard as adults
Defenses for OL
- warning S-2(4) A warning should be enough to be reasonably safe
Westwood v Post office
Con Neg - Contrubutary negligence - if the claiment has contributed to their own harm.
Volenti - To one wh
Warning
s - 2 (4) A warning should be enough to be reasonable safe.
Con neg
Contributory negligence if the claimant had contributed to their own harm.
Volenti
To one who concenses no harm is done - Titchner
The defendant was not liable as the claimant had accepted to the precise risk.
