OLA 57

Question 1

OLA 57 plan

Answer 1

Refers to the duty owed by occupiers to the visitors who are lawfully on their premises (includes land, buildings and fixed moveable structures under s1(3)(a))
- can claim damages for: death, personal injury, and damage to property

S2(2) - duty imposed - ‘to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonable safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted or be there’ - Wheat v Lacon

Lawful visitors includes:
- s1(2) - invitees (express permission to be there; invitation mustn’t be exceeded)
- licensees (express or implied permission to be there)
- s2(6) - entering in exercising a statutory right (eg read gas or electricity meters)
- s5(1) - entering pursuant to a contract (eg hotel guests, cinema customers)
- implied licence at common law - repeated trespass and no action by occupier to prevent it (awareness of trespass and the danger on premises) - Lowery v Walker
- licence more likely implied in presence of allurement principle

Breach of DoC:
- The standard of care is the ‘reasonable occupier’ (failure to reach = breach)
- However there are 2 situations where standard degree of care may vary:
- s2(3)(a) - occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
- courts will consider child’s age and the level of understanding a child of that age should have
- allurement principle: land holds a concealed danger or something attractive on land that may reasonably allure children to it (duty will likely exist) - Taylor v Glasgow City Council
- s2(3)(b) - occupier employs an expert to come onto premises to undertake work
- expert is expected to know of and protect themselves against any dangers that arise from premises in relation to their work - Roles v Nathan

Warnings and warning signs:
- s2(4)(a) - a warning given to the visitor will not be treated as absolving the occupier of liability unless in all the circumstances, it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonable safe
- where there’s an obvious risk, there’s no duty to warn - Darby v National Trust

Independent contractors:
- s2(4)(b) - occupier isn’t liable for dangers created by independent contractors if they:
- acted reasonable in all the circumstances in entrusting the work to the independent contractor
- took reasonable steps to ensure that the work was properly carried out and the contractor was competent - Bottomely v Todmorden Cricket Club

Defences:
1) Volenti non fit injuria - s2(5) - no obligation of DoC on occupiers in respect of risks freely and voluntarily accepted by visitors (with full understanding of nature and extent of risk) - Tichener v British Railways Board, White Lion Hotel v James
2) Contributory negligence - factors eg likelihood of injury, seriousness of injury risked and precautions they should have taken
3) Exclusion of liability
- s2(1) - allows occupier to extend, restrict, exclude of modify their duty to visitors as far as they are free to do so

Question 2

Wheat v Lacon

Answer 2

The occupier is someone who has some degree of control over the premises (doesn’t need to be the owner) - can be more than 1, both the brewery and the managers owed a duty

Question 3

Lowery v Walker

Answer 3

Licence was implied through repeated trespass which D was aware of

Question 4

Taylor v Glasgow City Council

Answer 4

Allurement principle

The council knew children would be lured in and knew of the danger that the berries were poisonous

Question 5

Roles v Nathan

Answer 5

Experts - s2(3)(b)

The occupiers weren’t liable for the deaths as the C’s were experts

Question 6

Darby v National Trust

Answer 6

Warnings

As the risk was obvious, the occupier didn’t have to give a warning

Question 7

Bottomely v Todmorden Cricket Club

Answer 7

Independent contractors

D was liable as they hadn’t checked the contractor’s insurance (no reasonable steps taken)

Question 8

White Lion Hotel v James

Answer 8

Volenti non fit injuria C

A visitor’s freely chosen risk doesn’t necessarily negate the occupier’s liability, as hotel failed to prevent foreseeable harm from hidden dangers on their premises

Question 9

Tichener v British Railways Board

Answer 9

Volenti non fit injuria

C was fully aware of the danger of crossing a train line, so she must be taken to have consented to the risk