OLA 1957 Flashcards
(20 cards)
What are the types of occupiers?
- Owners of premises
- Holders of other legal rights to the premises (e.g., tenants)
- Managers of businesses operating from the premises
- Organizations with a responsibility for maintenance
- Others who have control of premises
These categories define who can be held liable under occupiers’ liability laws.
In Wheat v Lacon, who was the occupier?
The manager of the pub
This case established that a manager can be considered an occupier.
What is defined as a ‘premises’ under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957?
Any fixed or movable structure, including any vehicle, vessel, and aircraft
This is outlined in section 1, paragraph 3 of the Act.
What duty does an occupier owe to visitors according to Section 2(1) OLA 1957?
The common duty of care
This duty applies to all visitors.
What does Section 2(2) OLA 1957 require of an occupier?
To take reasonable care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe
It does not require the occupier to guarantee safety.
In Cole v Davis Gilbert, why did the claimant lose the case?
Davis Gilbert was unaware of the hole remaining
The case emphasized that premises only need to be reasonably safe.
Why were occupiers liability laws created?
- To keep premises safe
- To protect owners from lawsuits
- To facilitate public liability insurance
These laws ensure that business premises are safe for the public.
Who are considered visitors under occupiers liability laws?
- Invitees
- Licensees
- Anyone with a contractual right
- Workmen performing agreed tasks
- Police officers executing a search warrant
These categories define who can claim under occupiers’ liability.
What was the ruling in Bourne Leisure v Marsden?
Not liable for the child’s drowning
The court ruled that the park was not responsible for the absence of barriers.
What does the OLA 1957 say about children?
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
This is specified under section 2(3)(a).
What was the outcome of Moloney v Lambeth LBC regarding child safety?
The council was liable for the child’s death from poisonous berries
The berries were deemed an allurement to children.
What did the court conclude in Jolley v London Borough of Sutton?
The council was liable for failing to remove an abandoned boat
It was foreseeable that children would play on the boat.
What principle was established in Phipps v Rochester Corporation?
The occupier can expect parents to supervise young children
This case was decided before the OLA 1957 and was overruled by implication.
What does section 2(3)(b) of the OLA 1957 state about people exercising their calling?
An occupier may expect them to guard against risks associated with their work
This reflects the assumption of skill in their profession.
What was the result of Roles v Nathan (1963)?
The occupier was not liable for the deaths of chimney sweeps
The sweeps were expected to guard against risks associated with their work.
What must an occupier do to avoid liability when using an independent contractor?
- Ensure it is reasonable to hire the contractor
- Confirm the contractor’s competence
- Check the contractor’s insurance
These steps help in discharging the occupier’s duty under the OLA.
In Haseldine v Daw & Sons (1941), why was the occupier not liable?
The repair of the lift was considered highly specialist work
It was reasonable for the occupier to hire a specialist for the task.
What was the conclusion in Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003)?
The cricket club was found liable due to failure in hiring competent contractors
The stunt team lacked insurance and used unsafe materials.
What did Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945) establish regarding occupiers’ liability?
Occupiers were liable for failing to ensure the safety of school steps
The icy steps were a direct result of negligence in ensuring proper work was done.
