Unit 4b Prt 5: Occupiers Liability 1957

Question 1

Claimant

Answer 1

Must be a lawful visitor which is one with expressed/implied permission, there are 3 types of implied

1. Repeated visits (Lowery v walker)
2. Allurement (Jolly v Sutton) -kids only
3. Statutory permission

Question 2

Defendant

Answer 2

Occupier which is defined by the sufficient control test from wheat v lacon

Question 3

Premises

Answer 3

S.1(3)(a) outlined as any fixed or moveable structure - even a ladder can be premises (wheeler v copas)

Question 4

Duty

Answer 4

Nature of the duty s.2(1) - to keep the visitor safe NOT the premises
Standard of care s.2(2) to keep the visitor reasonably safe

Question 5

Children

Answer 5

S.3(a) - the occupier should assume children will be less careful than adults and should take precautions to keep them safe (moloney v lambeth)

Question 6

Specialist visitors

Answer 6

S3(b) specialist visitors are to assumed to have the knowledge to protect themselves from risks in their area of expertise (Roles v Nathan)

Question 7

Warnings

Answer 7

S4(a) - can discharge the duty of care providing there are verbal or written warnings of the possible danger (roles v nathan)

Question 8

Independent contractors

Answer 8

S4(b) - if the occupier can’t check the standard of work done by the IC then they can discharge the duty of care to the IC (haseldine v daw) and vice versa (woodward v mayor of hastings)

Question 9

Consent

Answer 9

S.5 - if the claimant has consented to the risk of personal injury then they will not be able to claim (Geary v JD wetherspoons)

Question 10

Contributory negligence

Answer 10

S6 - general contributory negligence rules apply, and will reduce remedies if it is apparent (brannon v airtours)