Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > OLA 1957 > Flashcards

OLA 1957 Flashcards

1
Q

Lawful visitors

A
  • Invitees
  • Licensees
  • Contractual visitors
  • Those with statutory right of entry
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Licensees

A

Expressed or implied permission to be on the premises for a particular period and purpose

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

Examples of those with a statutory right of entry

A
  • those with a warrant
  • meter reader
  • postman
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

1(3)(a)

A

premises is any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

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

premises is any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

A

1(3)(a)

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

Wheat 1966

A
  • The occupier is someone with a ‘sufficient degree of control’ over the premises
  • There can be more than one occupier with control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  • The occupier is someone with a ‘sufficient degree of control’ over the premises
  • There can be more than one occupier with control
A

Wheat 1966

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

Harris 1976

A

Do not have to be present to be an occupier

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

Do not have to be present to be an occupier

A

Harris 1976

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

Bailey v Armes 1999

A

Can be occupier and still not be found liable because there is not a sufficient degree of control over that part of the premises

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

Can be occupier and still not be found liable because there is not a sufficient degree of control over that part of the premises

A

Bailey v Armes 1999

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

Laverton v Kiapasha 2002

A

Not required to eliminate every possible risk

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

Not required to eliminate every possible risk

A

Laverton v Kiapasha 2002

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

Debell 2016

A
  • Visible minor defects with a foreseeable risk of injury may be acceptable
  • Tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  • Visible minor defects with a foreseeable risk of injury may be acceptable
  • Tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences
A

Debell 2016

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

S.2(3)(a)

A

Duty owed is subjective based on child’s age

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

Duty owed is subjective based on child’s age

A

S.2(3)(a)

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

Taylor 1922

A
  • Children are vulnerable to allurements
  • Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q
  • Children are vulnerable to allurements
  • Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
A

Taylor 1922

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

S.2(3)(b)

A

Duty owed is subjective based on profession

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

Duty owed is subjective based on profession

A

S.2(3)(b)

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

There is a presumption that a professional would not be negligent due to their qualifications and experience, so would be liable for their actions

A

Roles v Nathan 1963

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Roles v Nathan 1963

A

There is a presumption that a professional would not be negligent due to their qualifications and experience, so would be liable for their actions

24
Q

Defences

A
  • Independent contractor
  • Volenti (consent)
  • Exclusion clauses
  • Warning notice
24
Q

Ogwo v Taylor 1987

A

A duty of care could be owed to a rescuer if they are injured by something incidental to the rescue

24
Q

A duty of care could be owed to a rescuer if they are injured by something incidental to the rescue

A

Ogwo v Taylor 1987

25
Q

To transfer liability to the party most at fault, the occupier must satisfy requirements under what section?

A

S.2(4)(b)

26
Q

S.2(4)(b)

A
  • It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor
  • Check insurance competence
  • Check their work to ensure that it presents no hazards
27
Q
  • It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor
  • Check insurance competence
  • Check their work to ensure that it presents no hazards
A

S.2(4)(b)

28
Q

It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor

A

Haseldine v Daw 1941

29
Q

Haseldine v Daw 1941

A

It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor

30
Q

Bottomley 2003

A
  • Check insurance competence
  • must exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors
31
Q
  • Check insurance competence
  • must exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors
A

Bottomley 2003

32
Q

Gwilliam 2002

A

Check work to ensure that it presents no hazards

33
Q

Check work to ensure that it presents no hazards

A

Gwilliam 2002

34
Q

Ferguson v Welsh 1987

A

occupier would not be liable for the unsafe work system of a subcontractor, since they could not reasonably be expected to supervise it

35
Q

occupier would not be liable for the unsafe work system of a subcontractor, since they could not reasonably be expected to supervise it

A

Ferguson v Welsh 1987

36
Q

Volenti (consent)

A

Lawful visitor voluntarily accepts responsibility for the risk of injury

37
Q

allows the occupier to ‘restrict, modify or exclude’ their duty with a verbal or written warning

A

S.2(1)

38
Q

S.2(1)

A

allows the occupier to ‘restrict, modify or exclude’ their duty with a verbal or written warning

39
Q

Who cannot use S.2(1)?

A

Businesses

40
Q

Businesses cannot use what section?

A

S.2(1)

41
Q

Whether an exclusion clause would work against a child would depend on what?

A
  • age
  • ability to understand the clause
42
Q

What must a warning notice be?

A
  • verbal or written
  • clear
  • explicit
  • ‘enough’ in the circumstances
43
Q

Whether the danger is obvious is subjective based on what?

A

Age

44
Q

Staples 1995

A

No obligation to warn against obvious dangers

45
Q

No obligation to warn against obvious dangers

A

Staples 1995

46
Q

The damage done must be due to the state of the premises

A

Darby v National Trust 2001

47
Q

Darby v National Trust 2001

A

The damage done must be due to the state of the premises

48
Q

If the premises is extremely dangerous, the visitor should be given specific notice of the danger

A

Rae v Mars 1990

49
Q

Rae v Mars 1990

A

If the premises is extremely dangerous, the visitor should be given specific notice of the danger

50
Q

Taylor 2016

A

The warning must be clear

51
Q

The warning must be clear

A

Taylor 2016

52
Q

Lowery v Walker

A

There is implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but does nothing to stop it

53
Q

There is implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but does nothing to stop it

A

Lowery v Walker

54
Q

(Edwards 1952)

A

There is no implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but tries to stop the trespasser

55
Q

There is no implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but tries to stop the trespasser

A

(Edwards 1952)

Tort (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions