OLA 1957

Question 1

what is a lawful visitor

Answer 1

someone who has express or implied permission to enter
contractual or legal right

Question 2

what can lawful visitors claim for

Answer 2

personal injury and property damage

Question 3

what will a duty of care only cover

Answer 3

when danger is due to the state of the premises

Question 4

case for danger due to state of premises

Answer 4

Geary v Weatherspoon

Question 5

Geary v Weatherspoon facts

Answer 5

fell of a stair banister after climbing on it, her injuries were due to her own decisions not unsafe premises

Question 6

section for duty of care

Answer 6

s.2(2)

Question 7

duty owed to lawful visitors

Answer 7

take such care in all circumstances reasonable to keep visitor reasonably safe for purpose of their visit

Question 8

how safe does the visitor need to be

Answer 8

only reasonably safe (objective test)

Question 9

case for keeping visitors only reasonably safe

Answer 9

Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway

Question 10

Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway facts

Answer 10

rainy day and customer slipped
owners fitted special slip resistant tiles and mopped
they had take reasonable care to ensure customers were safe
no duty to keep them completely safe

Question 11

what are visitors expected to do

Answer 11

take reasonable care for their own safety

Question 12

case for visitors taking reasonable care for their own safety

Answer 12

Rochester cathedral v debell

Question 13

Rochester cathedral v debell

Answer 13

tripped due to minor defect in pavement
tripping are everyday occurrences, accidents happen
occupier does not need to guarantee their safety

state of premises must pose a real source of danger

Question 14

child visitors duty section

Answer 14

s.2(3)(a)

Question 15

what duty does occupiers owe to children

Answer 15

occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

Question 16

why is a higher standard owed to children

Answer 16

they are vulnerable and less likely to appreciate risks, could be attracted to danger

Question 17

case for children visitors

Answer 17

Jolley v Sutton

Question 18

Jolley v Sutton facts

Answer 18

kids found abandon old boat
tried to repair it, fell on him, paralysed

breached duty by failing to move boat as it is smh the would be attractive to kids
some injury reasonably foreseeable if kids played on it

Question 19

in relation to children visitors what is an occupier entitled to assume

Answer 19

very young children will be accompanied by someone looking after them reducing standard of care

Question 20

case for young children

Answer 20

Phipps v Rochester corp

Question 21

Phipps v Rochester corp facts

Answer 21

young girl fell down trench
not liable bc child was too young to play

Question 22

section for duty of care owed to professional visitors

Answer 22

s.2(3)(b)

Question 23

duty owed to professional visitors

Answer 23

occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his trade will appreciate and guard against any special risks they ought to know through their work

Question 24

standard owed to professionals

Answer 24

lower SOC in respect to special risks associated w their job

Question 25

case for professionals

Answer 25

Roles v Nathan

Question 26

Roles v Nathan facts

Answer 26

chimney sweeps died from inhaling poisonous fumes special risk they should have been familiar with and be guarded against

Question 27

5 defences available

Answer 27

independent contractors warning notices exclusion clauses contrib negligence consent

Question 28

section for independent contractors

Answer 28

s.2(4)(b)

Question 29

what 3 conditions need to be met for IC

Answer 29

1. reasonable to hire contractor 2. reasonable precautions taken to ensure contractor was competent 3. reasonable checks taken to inspect work

Question 30

case for reasonable to hire contractor

Answer 30

Haseldine v Daw

Question 31

Haseldine v Daw facts

Answer 31

lift negligently repaired by IC occupier not liable as they fulfilled their duty by appointing competent firm was reasonable to entrust specialist

Question 32

case for reasonable precautions

Answer 32

Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club

Question 33

Bottomley v Todmorden cricket club

Answer 33

firework display injured guest hired a stunt team failed to exercise reasonable care to choose safe and competent contractors

Question 34

case for reasonable checks

Answer 34

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

Question 35

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings facts

Answer 35

child injured on icy school steps occupiers liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check work that had been properly done, danger should have been obvious

Question 36

section for warning notices

Answer 36

s.2(4)(a)

Question 37

how are warning notices a defence

Answer 37

occupiers liability discharged if they give effective warning of danger, must be sufficient

Question 38

case for warning notices

Answer 38

Rae v Marrs

Question 39

Rae v Marrs facts

Answer 39

warning sign not sufficient as it could not be seen should have done more in the circumstances

Question 40

case for no need for a warning sign

Answer 40

Staples v West Dorset

Question 41

Staples v West Dorset facts

Answer 41

danger off slipping on algae was obvious, no need for warning sign

Question 42

exclusion clause defence

Answer 42

restricts or prevents duty arising in first place

Question 43

contrib negligence defence

Answer 43

degree of care reasonable visitor can be expected to take and may reduce compensation if they are partially responsible

Question 44

consent

Answer 44

complete defence, willingly accepted risk of negligence