OLA 84

Question 1

OLA 84 plan

Answer 1

Imposes liability on occupiers with regard to persons other than ‘visitors’ on their premises. This includes trespassers, burglars, and those who exceed their permission
- s1(8) - can claim for: death and serious injury

S1(3) - occupiers owes a duty to a non-visitor if:
(a) - occupier’s is aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists, and
(b) - knows/has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of danger or may come into the vicinity of danger (if frequent, likelihood that occupier owes a duty increases), and
(c) - the risk is one where, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection (common humanity - reasonable steps to prevent injury)
- Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Breach of DoC:
Standard of care is objective (not met = breach)
- S1(4) - duty imposed - to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the unlawful visitor does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned - Ratcliff v McConnell
- it must be the premises themself that is dangerous, not the activity the C engages in - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
- if danger was obvious, occupier may not be liable as they can expect the trespasser to recognize and avoid it

Warnings and warning signs:
S1(5) - the duty may be discharged by giving warning or discouraging others from taking the risk
- no need if risk is obvious - Tomlinson v Congleton

Defences:
1) Volenti non fit injuria - s1(6) - 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)
2) Contributory negligence - damages may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1954, where visitor fails to take reasonable care for their own safety - Revill v Newbury
- unlike 57 Act, exclusion of liability isn’t allowed - not expressly forbidden by the Act though

Question 2

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Answer 2

DoC - s1(3)

No duty owed as occupier had no reason to believe a trespasser would be in the area at that time (winter night)

Question 3

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 3

Breach - s1(4)

Locks and warnings were sufficient so the occupier wasn’t liable

Question 4

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

Answer 4

Breach - s1(4)

No liability as the injury was caused by the chid’s own actions, not the state of the premises, which wasn’t inherently dangerous

Question 5

Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 5

Warnings - s1(6)

No liability as danger arose from the C’s own actions; the risk was obvious and the council had taken reasonable steps to prevent access

Question 6

Revill v Newbury

Answer 6

D was liable but contributory negligence was taken into consideration and reduced damages