Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort > OLA 1957 > Flashcards

OLA 1957 Flashcards

(58 cards)

Start Studying
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Defences

Study These Flashcards
A
  • Independent contractor
  • Volenti (consent)
  • Exclusion clauses
  • Warning notice
24
Ogwo v Taylor 1987
A duty of care could be owed to a rescuer if they are injured by something incidental to the rescue
24
A duty of care could be owed to a rescuer if they are injured by something incidental to the rescue
Ogwo v Taylor 1987
25
To transfer liability to the party most at fault, the occupier must satisfy requirements under what section?
S.2(4)(b)
26
S.2(4)(b)
- 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
- 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
S.2(4)(b)
28
It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor
Haseldine v Daw 1941
29
Haseldine v Daw 1941
It must be reasonable in the circumstances to hire an independent contractor
30
Bottomley 2003
- Check insurance competence - must exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors
31
- Check insurance competence - must exercise reasonable care in choosing safe and competent contractors
Bottomley 2003
32
Gwilliam 2002
Check work to ensure that it presents no hazards
33
Check work to ensure that it presents no hazards
Gwilliam 2002
34
Ferguson v Welsh 1987
occupier would not be liable for the unsafe work system of a subcontractor, since they could not reasonably be expected to supervise it
35
occupier would not be liable for the unsafe work system of a subcontractor, since they could not reasonably be expected to supervise it
Ferguson v Welsh 1987
36
Volenti (consent)
Lawful visitor voluntarily accepts responsibility for the risk of injury
37
allows the occupier to ‘restrict, modify or exclude’ their duty with a verbal or written warning
S.2(1)
38
S.2(1)
allows the occupier to ‘restrict, modify or exclude’ their duty with a verbal or written warning
39
Who cannot use S.2(1)?
Businesses
40
Businesses cannot use what section?
S.2(1)
41
Whether an exclusion clause would work against a child would depend on what?
- age - ability to understand the clause
42
Whether the danger is obvious is subjective based on what?
Age
43
Staples 1995
No obligation to warn against obvious dangers
44
No obligation to warn against obvious dangers
Staples 1995
45
The damage done must be due to the state of the premises
Darby v National Trust 2001
46
Darby v National Trust 2001
The damage done must be due to the state of the premises
47
If the premises is extremely dangerous, the visitor should be given specific notice of the danger
Rae v Mars 1990
48
Rae v Mars 1990
If the premises is extremely dangerous, the visitor should be given specific notice of the danger
49
Taylor 2016
The warning must be clear
50
The warning must be clear
Taylor 2016
51
Lowery v Walker
There is implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but does nothing to stop it
52
There is implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but does nothing to stop it
Lowery v Walker
53
Edwards 1952
There is no implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but tries to stop the trespasser
54
There is no implied permission if the occupier is aware that a person repeatedly trespasses but tries to stop the trespasser
Edwards 1952
55
What is the duty of care created in the Act?
The occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor is reasonably safe
56
What section is the OLA 1957 duty?
S.2(2)

Tort (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions