OLA 1984 Flashcards Preview

Tort Law > OLA 1984 > Flashcards

Flashcards in OLA 1984 Deck (21):

How do claims for damage differ in the OLA?

for personal injury only, not for property damage s. 1(8).


What must the loss be caused by?

the state of the premises.


What is the definition of premises?

s 1(2)(a) OLA 1984, same as the definition in s 1(3)(1) OLA 1957.


Who defined a trespasser?

Robert Addie & Sons v Dumbreck:

“he who goes on to land without invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or, if known is practically objected to”


Who is an occupier in OLA 1984?

s 1(2)(a) OLA 1984, same as in OLA 1957, look to common law test in Wheat v Lacon.


What is the duty under OLA 1984?

Not automatic (s. 1(3) OLA)
Need to meet three conditions outlined in s. 1(3)(a-c).


a) Occupier aware of danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists cases?

Swain v Natui Puri: no constructive knowledge - not liable for 9-year-old on roof.

Rhind v Astbury: occupiers unaware of fibreglass container in lake.

putting up a sign / fence will show awareness.


b) reasonable grounds to believe that a person would be in the vicinity of the danger cases?

Swain v Natui Puri

Young v Kent: knew children played on roof so liable for fall through brittle skylight.

White v St Albans: putting up fences did not show they knew trespasser would be in the vicinity.

Donoghue v Folkestone: midnight in winter - occupiers did not expect diver to hit head on grid belt.


the risk is one against which occupier may reasonably be expected to offer trespasser some
protection cases?

Tomlinson v Congleton - lake not inherently hazardous.

Keown v Coventry healthcare: NHS fire escape not hazardous.

Young v Kent: occupiers could have put up barriers easily.


where is the breach standard found?

s. 1(4) Reasonably competent occupier (expected to do less in respect of
trespassers than visitors).


How does discharge through warnings differ?

Need not be as specific.


Titchener v BRB?

fences on railway line sufficed as warnings.


Westwood v Post Office

"only authorised attendants permitted to enter", did not warn of the danger itself and merely alerted the claimant to the fact he was a trespasser.



Yes s 1(6)


Volenti cases?

Keown v Coventry Healthcare: 11-year-old consented to risk of climbing a fire escape as knew not supposed to be there.

Ratcliffe v McConnell: tipsy student consented risk of jumping into shallow pool.



Not found in statute but applied in Young v Kent.


Can liability be excluded?

No mention in statute but prevailing view is that you can only exclude liability if it is reasonable to do so (common law).


Give two cases related to loss 'related to the premises'.

Revill v Newbury: if activity on the premises then bring claim in negligence (shooting claimant with a shot gun was not related to the premises so brought under common law).

Siddorn v Patel: dancing around skylight was the faulty activity, nothing wrong with the roof itself.


Bailey v Armes?

Two potential occupiers but neither met the test as neither had sufficient control of the roof area.


Wheat v Lacon?

At a B&B a guest died when he fell down the stairs. A third-party had removed the light.


What will the court do under contributory negligence?

Reduce damages to the amount they think just and equitable.