OLA 1957

Question 1

An occupier

Answer 1

An occupier - is the person in control of the premises Wheat v Lacon

Question 2

Premises

Answer 2

premises are any ‘fixed or movable structure’ - Hasledine v Daw

Question 3

s2(1)

Answer 3

s2(1) sets out the common duty of care owed to all lawful visitors.

Question 4

s2(2)

Answer 4

s2(2) - duty is to take reasonable care to keep the visitor safe for the purposes for which the
visitor is permitted entry

Question 5

Moloney v Lambeth BC

Answer 5

higher standard of care must be afforded children as children are more at risk

Question 6

Glasgow Corporation v
Taylor

Answer 6

doctrine of allurement

Question 7

Phipps v
Rochester Corporation

Answer 7

defendants can expect parents to supervise their children

Question 8

Roles v Nathan

Answer 8

specialist visitor is expected to guard against risks associated with the trade

Question 9

Rae v Mars

Answer 9

sufficient warnings but must be enough to protect

Question 10

s.2(4)(b)

Answer 10

s.2(4)(b) if damage caused by negligent work of an independent contractor. If:
(a) it was
reasonable to hire a contractor for the work,
(b) a competent contractor was chosen (due diligence) and
(c) the work was inspected if appropriate Haseldine v Daw

Question 11

Can exclusion clauses be used to avoid liability?

Answer 11

s2(1) use of exclusion clauses in certain circumstances – but subject to UCTA rules

Question 12

Defence and remedies

Answer 12

Defences:
- s2(5) volenti/consent, s2(3) contributory negligence
Remedies
- damages for personal injury, property damage AND consequential losses

Question 13

s2(3)(a)

Answer 13

higher standard of care must be afforded children as children are more at risk

Question 14

s2(3)(b)

Answer 14

specialist visitor is expected to guard against risks associated with the trade Roles v Nathan

Question 15

2(4)(a)

Answer 15

sufficient warnings but must be enough to protect Rae v Mars