OLA 1957

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

The visitor may have a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA) for his or her injuries. OLA 1957 covers lawful visitors.

Question 2

occupier? case?

Answer 2

It must be proved that there was an occupier: someone who has sufficient control of the premises. (wheat v lacon)

Question 3

lawful visitor? What are the 3 ways and a case?

Answer 3

It must be proved that there was a lawful visitor under s1 (2) OLA 1957.
apply relevant to the scenario:
1 express or implied permission, eg, invitees, licensees. (lowery v walker)
2 legal rights of entry, eg, emergency services, utility workers.
3 permission due to contract, eg, cinema goers with a ticket or guests at a hotel.

Question 4

What case says that those who exceed their permission under OLA 1957 become trespassers and will be dealt with under OLA 1984?

Answer 4

The Calgarth

Question 5

premises? cases?

Answer 5

It must be proved that the damage occurred on D’s premises:
Section 1(3)(a) defines premises as any land and buildings, including any fixed or movable structures.
Wheeler v Copas ( ladder-moveable), Haseldine v Daw (lift-fixed), both were premises

Question 6

State of the premises? case?

Answer 6

Cs’ injury must be due to the state of the premises (s.1 (1) (ogwo v taylor).

Question 7

duty under s.2 (2)

Answer 7

The duty under s.2(2) is that the occupier must take reasonable care to see that visitors will be reasonably safe using the premises for the purposes of their visit. The occupier is obliged to take steps against what is reasonably foreseeable.

Question 8

Duty of care towards children? case

Answer 8

higher duty of care towards children under s2(3)(a), expect children to be less carful than adults. (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor.)

Question 9

Duty of care towards experts? case

Answer 9

lower duty of care towards experts s2(3)(b). They should appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to their job ( roles v Nathan)

Question 10

what are