OLA 57 Flashcards
tort law (15 cards)
Express permission
where you are actually invited onto the premises.
Implied permission
where you would expect to be able to enter.
Who is the occupier?
determined by common law.
Wheat v E Lacon
a guest at a pub fell down the stairs and was killed. it was held that both the managers and the owners of the pub were occupiers as they both had some CONTROL over the premises.
Premises
“land, buildings, vessel, any fixed or moveable structure, including any levels, or vehicle and aircraft”
Common duty of care S2 (2)
“the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose of which he is invited”
Common duty of care - Staples v West Dorset DC
algae on a beach, person slipped and got injured. the warning sign was not necessarily visible.
Children S2 (3) (a)
“an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”
“premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age”
Children - Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
7yr old ate poison berries from a bush and died, no fence or warnings. Berries were tempting to a child, an ALLUREMENT so therefore liable.
Children - Phipps v Rochester Corporation
5yr old boy went on a building site and the defendant was aware of this. The boy fell down a trench and broke his leg. The defendant was not liable as no sensible parent lets their child wonder off.
Persons exercising a calling S2 (3) (b)
occupier can expect a persons in the exercise of their calling ,”will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it”
This means if an electrician electrocutes themselves then you will most likely not be liable but if they fall through your stairs you will probably be held liable.
Persons exercising a calling - Role v Nathan
2 chimney sweeps were killed by carbon monoxide gas. The occupiers were not held liable as the chimney sweeps should have been aware of danger. the risk was INCIDENTAL to the trade.
Independent Contractors S2 (4) (b)
if the occupier will not be held liable for the work of independent contractors if:
1) if they took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent.
2) if possible they should check the work has been carried out properly.
Independent Contractors - Haseldine v Daw
specialist company appeared to be competent and maintained a lift. The occupier could not check their work as it was highly technical. the lift plunged and killed the claimant, the occupier was not liable as could not check the work.
Independent Contractors - Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
child slipped at school on a snow covered step. school got contractors to clean it but they did not check and the step was not clean. school was held liable.
