Tort: OL

Question 1

What is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957)?

Answer 1

A statute governing the duty owed by occupiers to lawful visitors for loss caused by the state of premises

Question 2

What type of loss can a visitor recover under the OLA 1957?

Answer 2

Personal injury and property damage

Question 3

What does ‘occupier’ mean under the OLA 1957?

Answer 3

Someone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises (Wheat v Lacon [1966])

Question 4

Can someone who is not the owner be an occupier?

Answer 4

Yes, if they exercise sufficient control over the premises

Question 5

Can there be more than one occupier?

Answer 5

Yes, multiple parties can share control over different parts or hazards of the same premises

Question 6

What is meant by ‘premises’ under the OLA 1957?

Answer 6

Any fixed or moveable structure, including vessels, vehicles or aircraft (s.1(3)(a))

Question 7

Who is considered a ‘visitor’ under the OLA 1957?

Answer 7

Anyone lawfully on the premises: those with express or implied permission, lawful authority, or contractual permission

Question 8

How is ‘express permission’ distinguished for visitors?

Answer 8

Permission explicitly granted by the occupier, e.g., a ticketed guest; can be limited by area, time or purpose

Question 9

How can express permission be limited?

Answer 9

By signage or notice restricting access by area (Pearson v Coleman Bros), time (Stone v Taffe), or purpose (Tomlinson v Congleton BC)

Question 10

What is ‘implied permission’?

Answer 10

Permission inferred from the occupier’s conduct or common usage, e.g., postman delivering letters (Lowery v Walker)

Question 11

How can implied permission be negated?

Answer 11

By maintaining barriers or signs to show the occupier does not consent to entry (Edwards v Railways Executive)

Question 12

What is ‘lawful authority’ for a non-contractual visitor?

Answer 12

A legal right to enter regardless of occupier’s permission, e.g., statutory powers of utility workers (s.2(6) OLA 1957)

Question 13

What is ‘contractual permission’?

Answer 13

Entry under terms of a contract with the occupier, implying the occupier owes the common duty of care unless excluded (s.5(1) OLA 1957)

Question 14

What duty does an occupier owe to a visitor under the OLA 1957?

Answer 14

To take reasonable care to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe using the premises for permitted purposes (s.2(2))

Question 15

What is the standard of care owed to a visitor under OLA 1957?

Answer 15

That of a reasonable occupier, judged objectively

Question 16

How does a visitor’s personal vulnerability affect the standard of care?

Answer 16

If the occupier knows of a visitor’s vulnerability, they must take additional steps to keep them safe (Pollock v Cahill)

Question 17

What higher standard applies to child visitors?

Answer 17

Occupiers must anticipate that children are less careful and guard against allurement risks (s.2(3)(a), Taylor v Glasgow CC, Jolley v Sutton LBC)

Question 18

What lower standard applies to professional visitors?

Answer 18

Occupiers may expect professionals to guard against risks inherent to their trade (s.2(3)(b), Roles v Nathan)

Question 19

How do courts determine breach under the OLA 1957?

Answer 19

By balancing factors: likelihood and seriousness of harm, social value of activity, cost of precautions, and occupier’s resources

Question 20

Can an occupier discharge the duty by giving warnings?

Answer 20

Yes, if the warning sufficiently alerts the visitor to the danger so they can be reasonably safe (s.2(4)(a))

Question 21

What factors determine if a warning is adequate?

Answer 21

Clarity, prominence, specificity of danger, visitor’s capacity to understand, and nature of hazard

Question 22

When is a warning unnecessary under OLA 1957?

Answer 22

For obvious dangers that a reasonable person would self-identify, e.g., a visibly slippery sea wall (Staples v West Dorset DC)

Question 23

Can an occupier discharge the duty by hiring an independent contractor?

Answer 23

Yes, if it was reasonable to hire a contractor, to check their competence, and to supervise and verify their work (s.2(4)(b))

Question 24

What does ‘reasonable to hire an independent contractor’ require?

Answer 24

That the work was suitably technical and it was reasonable to entrust it to a competent contractor (Haseldine v Daw)

Question 25

When must an occupier check an independent contractor’s competence?

Answer 25

When reasonable, considering the complexity of the work and the occupier’s own expertise (Haseldine v Daw)

Question 26

When must an occupier supervise or inspect a contractor’s work?

Answer 26

If the hazard is non-technical and obvious, the occupier should verify the work was properly done (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings)

Question 27

How are breach factors integrated into an OLA 1957 claim?

Answer 27

Courts weigh hazard severity, obviousness, visitor characteristics, and occupier’s resources to assess reasonable care

Question 28

How should causation and remoteness be treated under OLA 1957?

Answer 28

By applying conventional common law principles unless obvious issues arise; generally assume causation/remoteness once breach is shown

Question 29

What defenses are available under the OLA 1957?

Answer 29

Volenti/non est factum (s.2(5)), contributory negligence (s.2(3)), and possibly illegality

Question 30

How does volenti operate under OLA 1957?

Answer 30

Occupier is not liable if the visitor fully appreciates the risk and voluntarily accepts it (s.2(5))

Question 31

What is required to establish volenti under OLA 1957?

Answer 31

Proof that the visitor knew the specific risk and willingly accepted it; intoxication does not excuse ignorance (White v Blackmore)

Question 32

How does contributory negligence operate under OLA 1957?

Answer 32

Visitor’s damages may be reduced if they failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, judged objectively (s.2(3))

Question 33

Can a child visitor be contributorially negligent?

Answer 33

Yes, but judged against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, not an adult standard (Gough v Thorne)

Question 34

Is illegality a valid defense under OLA 1957?

Answer 34

It is not explicitly preserved; courts are unlikely to allow it as it conflicts with OLA 1957’s purpose

Question 35

What does Section 3 of OLA 1957 prohibit?

Answer 35

Excluding or restricting the common duty of care owed to visitors who are strangers to any contract (s.3(1))

Question 36

What is a 'stranger to the contract' under Section 3?

Answer 36

Someone not entitled to benefit of the contract, i.e., not a party or successor (s.3(3))

Question 37

What is the effect of Section 3 OLA 1957 on exclusion clauses?

Answer 37

Occupier cannot limit liability to non-contracting visitors; contract terms cannot override statutory duty

Question 38

How does UCTA 1977 regulate exclusion clauses under OLA 1957?

Answer 38

B2B occupiers may not exclude liability for death or personal injury (s.2(1)); may exclude other loss if reasonable (s.2(2))

Question 39

What factors are considered for reasonableness under UCTA?

Answer 39

Bargaining power, availability of alternatives, task difficulty, practical consequences and insurance (Smith v Eric S. Bush)

Question 40

How does the CRA 2015 regulate exclusion clauses under OLA 1957?

Answer 40

Traders may not exclude liability for death or personal injury to consumers (s.65); other exclusions must be fair (s.62)

Question 41

What is the 'fairness' test under CRA 2015?

Answer 41

Clause is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to good faith (s.62(4))

Question 42

What common law restriction limits exclusion under OLA 1957?

Answer 42

Common humanity principle: occupier must take minimal measures if a serious, foreseeable risk can be cheaply mitigated (Herrington)

Question 43

What does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) govern?

Answer 43

The duty owed by occupiers to non-visitors (trespassers) for personal injury caused by premises dangers

Question 44

What loss can non-visitors recover under the OLA 1984?

Answer 44

Personal injury or disease; property damage is not recoverable (s.1(1)(a), s.1(8))

Question 45

How is 'occupier' defined under the OLA 1984?

Answer 45

Same as under OLA 1957: any person with sufficient control over the premises (s.1(2)(a))

Question 46

How is 'premises' defined under the OLA 1984?

Answer 46

Any fixed or moveable structure (s.1(2)(b))

Question 47

How is a 'trespasser' defined in Addie v Dumbreck [1929]?

Answer 47

Someone entering without invitation and whose presence is unknown or objected to by the proprietor

Question 48

What are the three conditions for an occupier to owe a duty to a non-visitor under OLA 1984?

Answer 48

(1) Occupier aware or reasonably believes danger exists; (2) Occupier knows or believes trespasser is or may be in the vicinity; (3) Risk is one occupier reasonably should protect against (s.1(3))

Question 49

What does 'aware of danger' require under OLA 1984?

Answer 49

Actual knowledge of a hazard or facts that would make a reasonable occupier aware (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)

Question 50

What does 'knows trespasser is in vicinity' require under OLA 1984?

Answer 50

Actual knowledge or reasonable belief that someone is or might come near the hazard (Swain v Puri, Donoghue v Folkestone)

Question 51

What does 'reasonable to protect trespasser' involve under OLA 1984?

Answer 51

Weighing cost and feasibility of precautions against foreseeability and severity of harm in breach analysis

Question 52

How is breach assessed under OLA 1984?

Answer 52

By asking if the occupier took reasonable care for the trespasser’s safety, considering hazard nature, trespasser age, premises type, and foreseeability

Question 53

Can an occupier discharge duty under OLA 1984 by warning trespassers?

Answer 53

Yes, if they take reasonable steps to warn or discourage trespassers from entering the dangerous area (s.1(5))

Question 54

When is a warning adequate to discharge OLA 1984 duty?

Answer 54

If it sufficiently alerts a reasonable person to the danger and discourages entry; must consider trespasser’s age and understanding

Question 55

What defenses are available under the OLA 1984?

Answer 55

Volenti (s.1(6)), contributory negligence, and possibly illegality

Question 56

What is required for volenti under OLA 1984?

Answer 56

Proof that trespasser knew the risk and voluntarily accepted it in all its specificity

Question 57

How does contributory negligence apply under OLA 1984?

Answer 57

Trespasser’s damages may be reduced if they failed to take reasonable care for their own safety (Young v Kent CC, Tomlinson)

Question 58

Is illegality a likely defense under OLA 1984?

Answer 58

Unlikely to succeed, as OLA 1984 aims to protect trespassers; Revill v Newbery suggests illegality defense conflicts with statute’s purpose

Question 59

What is the purpose of the OLA 1984’s limited duty?

Answer 59

To balance occupiers’ interests with minimal protection for trespassers, avoiding total immunity for dangerous premises