Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year 1 - Business Law > sem 2 lesson 3 - OCCUPIERS LIABILITY > Flashcards

sem 2 lesson 3 - OCCUPIERS LIABILITY Flashcards

1
Q

What is a stautory duty of care

A

duty of care imposed by virtue of an act of parliament

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

give me example of stautory duty of care

A

consumer protection act 1987

health and safety at work act 1974

occupiers liability act 1957 & 84

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what are the two occypiers liability acts we are looking at and what is important about htem

A

1957

1984

they dont replace each other and they complete the regime we have for occupiers liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is occupier liabilty act 1957

A

governs liability for lawful visitors

imposes duty of care upon occupiers of land to take care of others who come onto their land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

descirbe the 1st occupiers liability act in two words

A

most generous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

who is a lawful visitor oputiend in the 1dt occupiers liabiltiy act 1957

A

on premises by lawful invitation e.g invited for dinner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is occupier liability act 1984

A

governs liabilty for tresspassers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

the occupiers act 1984 adds

A

extra responsibilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

why does the occupiers act 1984 add extra responsibility

A

as its nto just those people you invited onto your land you’ve got to keep safe not concerned w tresppassers

uninvited guest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

occupiers have xx but xx to keep trespassers safe also

A

occupiers have SOME but LESS repsonsibilites to keep trespassers safe also

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

lawful visitor definition

A

got lawful purpose of/ legimtimate reason for being on the land

express and implied permission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

trespasser

A

not invited or permitted to be on the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

occupier

A

person/s with the day to day control of land

wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd 1966

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

give example of express permission

A

please come round to house for dinner

(making it clear they can be here)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

give example of implied permission

A

post person delivering mail

you havent said they are invited onto your property but put in a pos box implying permission to be somewhere

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

if i invite somone to my house whre are they liekly to be invited expressly

A

kitchen area

living room

toilet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

if i invite someone to ebin my house were havent i given them permission to go

A

into my bedroom and look aound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

a person can move from a x to a x

A

vistor to trespasser

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

how can a person move from being a visitor to a trespasser

A

depending on actions

i.e if not been given express or implied permission to be somewhere and for what purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

you are allowed to be somehwere for the

A

purpose you have been invited there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

give exmaple fo when someone moves from visittor to trespasser

A

post man delivering mail but if go round the back of the house and garden after become a trespasser

already dropped of mail and got no reason to be there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

when someone moves from a visitor to a trespasser what does your responsibilty to them do

A

reduces (Slightly)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

occupier of the land not always the

A

owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

the law is taking a what appriach by sayong pccupoer os not the owner of land as what is the point of the law

A

practiicla appoach

the point of law is to make it safe for people to be on land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

it is not necessarily thwe hwo how has the msot control over the land

A

owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

give example of their being more than one occupier of land

A

got owner of land and somene who is managing it day to day

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

which case established you canhave more than one occupier of land at a time

A

Wheat v Lacon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

wheat v lacon 1966

A

wheats go on hol stay in pub

lacon - owner of pub

richardsons are licesnnsees of pub

pub is old, stairs are steep and no handrail on last 2 steps

one day they go down stairs and lightbulb not owkring

mr wheat falls down and dies

wife wants to pursue occupiers of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

why does wifef in wheat v lacon wan tto pursue occupiers of land

A

these are people responsbile for keeping them safe when on premises as lawful visstors are staying in pub

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what does court say when wife pusuring occupier of land in wheat v lacon

A

although owner own pubs and therefore in theour have some repsonisbility for areass of the land

lciensees of pub are the ones w day to day control and coulve made it safe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

in the wheat v lacon case why were there no claims made against Lacon

A

lacon not party installing handrails so one step distanced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

why did ricardsons get great repsonibility

A

they were the occupiers (even though don’t own land) and in charge of dem tings there

check if got charged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what is the definiton of land extended to

A

things on land - premises buildings etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

who do you have to be to be responsible to other people entering your land accoridng to the law

A

an occupier of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

what is the common duty of care - 1957 Act section 2(2)

A

occupirs have a duty towards visitors to take such care as in all the circumnstances of the case is reasonable

to see that teh vistor will reaosnably be safe in using the premises for the purpose which he is invited or permitted to be there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

what case shows occupier liability in the extended case of land

A

jolley v london borough of sutton 2000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

jolley v london borough of sutton 2000

A

Council ownd estate on which there is some common land

Boat deposited on common land
Some kids start palying w boat - plan to fix it up and reuse it

they hoist the boat up and boat lands on one of kids and paralysses them

Kids family pursue the council
Council say boat not ours just on the land

Court find boat is in cluded in their land - and hold ocuncil repsonisble - aslo cause kids meet the test of being lawful visitors w implied permission to be on the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

common duty of care - 1957 Act excludes who

A

lawful visitors not doing what they supposed to do and not using the premises as they have been invited to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

what case is used to demostrate common duty of care 1957 ACT

A

Darby v National Trust 2001

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

the stanndard of care in common duty of care 1957 act is not

A

perfection

38
Q

as standard of reasonable care act is not perfection what do we go back to

A

reasonableness test

39
Q

reasonableness test

A

got to keep people reasonably safe and take such car eas is reasonable - i.e so don’t got to do incredible things or necessrily everything only what is reasonable to protect people to a reasonable standard

40
Q

give example fo taking creaosnable care in common duty of care 1957 act

A

got building sights whihc are inherently dangeorus

court dont insit you eliminate all risks on building site

but youll take reasonable steps to insure they are reasoably safe e.g giing hard hat and letting them no where they are supposed to walk

41
Q

in common duty of care act 1957 - when we talking about reasonable care why are occupiers not expected to eliminate risk completely

A

people expected to take care of themselves esp if they over the age of 18

42
Q

what case is used to show common duty of care 1957 ACT- darby v national trust

A

Family go to national trust park and land has lakes

some lakes are for fishing and so got sign that say no swimming and some lakes w no signs

darby family have pcinic by lake
mr darby plays game wher he hides under water and pops up and waves he dont pop up last time and drowns cause he trapped in weeds

wife wants to pursue national trust saying you repsonsible for husbands safety when he was at your national trust park - he drowned and you didnt keep us safe

43
Q

what do national trust say in response to DARBY

A

you an adult

clearly looking at lake not swimming pool and it didnt have a life guard

so got to take repsonisbliy for risks you take as an adult

not entitled to entire protection and elmination of tisk from your own life

44
Q

what does court sya in darby national trust case and why

A

agree w NT

if htey said NT responsibile you would open wide floodgates and everyone whoever make a poor choice for ethmself

no occupiers liabilty

45
Q

adults are allwoed to make poor decisions for themselves why

A

as part of freedom so held accountable for their own mistakes

46
Q

what is S.3

A

the degree of care and of want of care

47
Q

what is S.3. degree of care and of want of care

A

an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults

48
Q

s.3. dwals withthe extent of

A

how careful occupiers have to be
depends on who you are

49
Q

there is a high level of care for who

A

kids

50
Q

why is the a greater levle of risk to expers and so a lower level of care

A

you are on land where you understand risks better than everyone

e.g surveyor goes on dangerous roof
court woould say you best understand the risk so not fonna give occupier strict and strong erpsonisblities for yu actions
i.e not gonna allow exceptional damages as you are the expert here

51
Q

what case do we use to show S.3

A

Glasgow coroporation v taylor 1922

52
Q

what happened in glasgow v tailor 1922

A

kids in botanical gardewn in glasgwo ate toxic red berry

taylor puseued botanical garden/glasgow corp under occupier liability

53
Q

why were botanical gardens pusrued under occupiers laibiltiy

A

didnt jeep kids safe

adults may havebeen able to assess risk but kids couldn’t as cant read sign

54
Q

what s the summary bit under glasgow corp v taylor 1922

A

an occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so

55
Q

if got an allurement whata re you expecred to do

A

take extra special care

56
Q

what is an allurement

A

tempting things on property that may attract people

57
Q

example of allurement -

A

swimming pool being attractive to teenagers

58
Q

when there is an allurement what test will be apploed

A

reasonable test

59
Q

give example of reasonable test ini a driained swimming pool

A

swmming pool is alluting

empty swimming pool is danberous

reasonable to take action to try to mitigate them

60
Q

what were the strawberries periceinved as to the kids

A

an allurement

61
Q

warning signs

A
62
Q

what is S.4(a)

A

where damge is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier

the warning is not to be trreated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumnstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasosnably safe

63
Q

in dealing w S.4(a) there is no obligation to

A

warn of an obvious risk

64
Q

law says signs are only as usefu as htey are useful what does hti smean

A

means just putting up a sing and saying I’m not responsible doesn’t cut it if sign doesn’t work and isn’t effective - got to actually be prevenitng harm

65
Q

who is not gonna be able to benefit fro usinng a sign

A

kids

people that dont speak teh langguage

people sigt impaited

66
Q

a cordon is only as useful as it is usegul what does this mean i.e give me an example

A

the cordon is high up

and the child is lower

67
Q

sum up S.4

A

you’re not absolved of responisbility just casue you gave warnings

esp if ineffective in keeping people reasonably safe

68
Q

give an exa,ple of a warning sign keepign people reasonably safe

A

if in tourst attraction where no one speaks english - putting up pictures

69
Q

what casw shows us that there is no obligation on anybody about obvious tisk

A

cotton v derbyshire dales dsitricy council 1994

70
Q

cotton v derbyshire dales district council 1994

A

coton fancied walking along edge on derbsyshire dales

ther was a sing saying its a steep walk

as you go along trail the sign disappear

cotton alls donw and severley injured - wants to sue council for no signs

court says - you were on the edge tis is a risk so obvious that you are the only one responsibel for taking care of yourself

71
Q

risks willingly acepted by the visitor is what section

A

s.5

72
Q

what is s.5 risks wilingly accepted by the visitor

A

the common duty of care doesnt impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly acepted as t/his by the visiot

no obligation to visitors willingly accepting risk

73
Q

sometimes risks are what by vistiros when tehy ste into a property

A

willingly acepted

74
Q

when youa re invited onto a proprey what are youa ccepting but what does this also depend on

A

some level of risk in which you can’t claim someone else is responsible

depend on story of what you did on premises - determines whether anyone should be responsible for you

75
Q

wat case do we use for s.5 risks willingly accepted by the visitor

A

tomlinson v congleton borough council 2003

76
Q

what is tomlinson v congleton borough council 2003

A

19yr old visit qarry- not suposed to but council aware people fo to quarroes- they put a fence but always got broken down by people they would fix it and warn people - #cycle

tom decided to stand at top jump in and paralused for rest og his life and wants to purseu coucil

77
Q

do the court analysis of tom v conglton borough council

was he a lawful visitor and wat was he ther for

A

accept argument he was a lawful visitor- by implied permission as overtime the laxness of the council made it implied - so council had repsonsiblity whilst he was there

what was he there for - he says he was there for a good time but steps h took was way to far - when cliomned to top and jumped in he was a trespasseer as that is not the purpise he was invited to be ther e

this so dangerous coucnil woild not give anyone permsision to do

and at this point he was aware of risk to himslef

trespaser so less repsoonsiblity

78
Q

trespasser - 1984 act

A

occupier has a duty to persons to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer an injury on the premises

79
Q

what is the repsosniblity for occuoier to respassers

A

reasonable care to keep people reasonably safe but only if certain corucmnstances applt

80
Q

what are teh three circumnstances that make hte occupier liable for trespassers

A

occupier knew of danger /(ought to have reasonably known)

occupier knows or has reasonable ground to believe a trespasser is in the vicinity/ (or know trespassers use property)

danger is one in which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection from

81
Q

give exmaple of occupier knew of danger/ought to have reasonably known but reasobly didnt know

A

sinkhole appears in field 10 mins after you go home and someone falls in

82
Q

wh0does the occupier knew of danger catch out

A

people who say if i didinit know aboutit how could i prevent it

and they have a duty to know so should be checking property

83
Q

occupier knows/has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in the vicinity means people cant just

A

bury head in sand

84
Q

what does 3) danger is one in whihc occupeir may reasonablt be expected to offer the trespasser dsome protection from ) mean

A

onnly repsonsibel to trespasser if the danger is something you could have done something about that wouldve protected trespasser

and changed teh situation

if it didnt make any difference you dodnt have to do it and so you aren’t responsible

85
Q

what 2 cases do we use for trespassers act 1984

A

scott v assocaited british ports 2000

revill v newberry 1996

86
Q

scott v associated british ports 2–

A

british port have ports and there is a railway

after railways there is embankment that teens use for getting high and drink then jump on trains

scott falls of train and looses arm and leg and wants to pursue brisiths port ……..

87
Q

do the test that the courts did

A

knew of danger and trespassers - didn’t know the 1st time but did after so might be responsible

danger you reasonable expected to offer the trespasser some protection from - real danger is trespasser here, how you gonna stop someone want to kump on train- could have done someting e,eg put a fence but it was heavily to do w the person who was a risk to themselves

88
Q

what happened in revill v newberry

A

newberry shot friednsd when they broke in

he stayed in shed til he heard them and shot them

revill chooses to pursue mr newberry

89
Q

in revil and newberry case run teh trespassers liablity test

A

know of danger - his gun isthe danger so yes

did he know trespassers were in his vicinity - big yah as he was waiting for them

could he have offerd protectionn - yes by not shooting him or by at least warning him got gun and giving him the chance to leave

90
Q

what did court say in case of revill and newberry

A

newberry resposnibel even though revill was on property to commit criminal act

91
Q

what happend in compensation.charges side of revill v newberry

A

revill convicted in cirminal courts

newberry responsible to him for his safety on his property

revill got ocmpensation from newberyr but reduced to 50% cause his own irresponsibelt for him ther in 1st place

92
Q

what can be claimed in 1957 and 1984 act

A

1957 Act - Death , personal injury and any other damage

1984 Act - Death and Personal Injury only

93
Q

if lawful visitor get injure as dinig table falls through what may they be able to claim under

A

1957 act

94
Q

with the 1957 act what are you actually able to claim loss for

A

everything that is caused by this e.g table falling through - e,g watch if it get broken

95
Q

what can trespassers claim in one word compared to lawful visitors

A

less

96
Q

why do trespassers only get compensaation for death and eprosnal injury

A

casue we dont want you to do or get injurd byt we care less about extra loss if youw ere a trespasser

Year 1 - Business Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions