Ola Evaluation

Question 1

(Front – Conclusion)

Answer 1

Overall, the Occupiers’ Liability Acts are mostly fair, but still cause debate.
The law provides clear protection for lawful visitors and basic protection for trespassers, which promotes safety. However, criticisms remain over exclusion clauses, child safety, and the harsh treatment of some claimants, especially under the 1984 Act.

Question 2

Front – Intro)

Answer 2

Occupiers’ Liability balances protection for visitors and trespassers with fairness for property owners.
The OLA 1957 and 1984 impose duties depending on visitor status, aiming to ensure occupiers act reasonably while preventing abuse of the legal system. However, fairness can be debated in how these duties apply across different situations.

Question 3

(Front - P):
The OLA 1957 creates one duty of care for all lawful visitors.

Answer 3

-Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: This replaced the old, confusing system of different duties for different visitor types.
• Impact: It ensures consistent protection and simplifies claims for lawful visitors.
• Example: In Wheat v Lacon, a lawful visitor was injured due to an unsafe staircase — the occupier was liable under the common duty of care.
• However: Treating all lawful visitors the same may overlook specific vulnerabilities, e.g. children or disabled people.

Question 4

(Front - P):
Occupiers can limit or exclude their duty using warnings (s.2(4) OLA 1957).

Answer 4

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: Reasonable warning signs can discharge liability, even if a danger exists.
• Impact: This gives occupiers control and can help reduce claims if visitors ignore warnings.
• Example: In Staples v West Dorset DC, the danger of a slippery harbour wall was obvious, so no warning was needed.
• However: Warnings can be unclear or ignored, and courts may still find them insufficient, risking unfairness for the claimant.

Question 5

(Front - P):
A higher standard of care is owed to children under the OLA 1957.

Answer 5

: Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: The law recognises that children are less able to spot risks.
• Impact: Occupiers must take extra precautions, especially in areas where children are expected.
• Example: In Glasgow Corp v Taylor, a child ate poisonous berries in a public park — the council failed in its duty.
• However: Some argue this puts too much pressure on occupiers, especially when parents should supervise their children.

Question 6

(Front - P):
Under the OLA 1984, trespassers have limited rights.

Answer 6

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: They can only claim for personal injury, not damage to property (s.1(8)).
• Impact: This protects occupiers from excessive liability while still offering basic protection.
• Example: In Keown v Coventry Healthcare, a boy injured climbing a fire escape was denied a claim — the risk came from his actions, not the premises.
• However: This can be harsh if occupiers are aware of frequent trespassers and take no action to prevent harm.

Question 7

(Front - P):
It’s unclear when a lawful visitor becomes a trespasser.

Answer 7

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: Once a visitor exceeds their permission, they may lose the right to claim under OLA 1957.
• Impact: This creates uncertainty and could punish visitors for minor breaches.
• Example: In Tomlinson v Congleton BC, the claimant ignored signs and swam in a lake — he was treated as a trespasser and couldn’t claim.
• However: This is fair in some cases, as occupiers shouldn’t be liable when clear rules are broken.