Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is an occupier? |
No statutory definition so the test for deciding is in case law. Potential defendants are the same under either act. Will be occupiers of the premises (who may be, don't have to be) if they are the owner/tenant of the premises. Wheat v E Lacon --> can be more than one occupier. |
|
|
What does premises mean? |
No full statutory definition except s1(3)(a) OLA 1957 states premises are a "fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft" This is used for both acts. |
|
|
s1(1) OLA 1957 states |
The Act is it regulate the duty an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of premises or to things done/omitted to be done on them. |
|
|
s2(1) OLA 1957 states |
An occupier of premises owes a duty of care to lawful adult visitors. This includes invitees, licencees (express/implied permission to be on land), those with contractual permission and those with legal right to entry. |
|
|
s2(2) OLA 1957 states |
The duty is to take such care as in all the circumstances it is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for which he is invited to be there. • occupier does not have to make the visitor completely safe, only do what is reasonable (Kipasha v Laverton --> slip resistant tiles) • Risk is reasonably foreseeable only when a real source of danger, which a reasonable person would see as obliging the occupier to take remedial action (Dean & Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell) • Duty does not extend to liability for pure accidents and the duty in respect of specific risk can not last indefinitely where there could be other causes of damage (Cole v Royal British Legion)
|
|
|
s2(3) OLA 1957 states |
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. • occupier should guard against any allurement (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor) • if allurement exists, will be no liability if the damage suffered is not forseeable (Jolley v London Borough of Sutton) • where very young children are injured, courts are reluctant to find liability as should be under supervision of parents (Phipps v Rochester Corporation)
|
|
|
s2(3)(b) OLA 1957 states |
An occupier can expect a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as occupier leaves him free to do so. • occupier will not be held liable where tradesmen fail to guard against risks which they should know about/ be expected to know about (Roles v Nathan) |
|
|
s2(4)(b) OLA 1957 states |
An occupier will not be liable for damages which is a result of work done by an independent contractor if: • it is reasonable to entrust the work (Haseldine v Daw) • the contractor hired is competent to carry out the work (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club) • the occupier is not obliged to inspect the work (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings) |
|
|
s4(a) OLA 1957 states |
A warning is ineffective unless in all circumstances it is enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. • if risk is obvious, no need to warn against it (Staples v West Dorset Council) • Sometimes a mere warning is insufficient to protect the visitor (Rae v Marrs) |
|
|
What defences can be used for OLA 1957? |
Can use contributory negligence and volenti defences. |
|
|
s1(1)(a) OLA 1984 states |
The duty applies in respect of people for injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done/omitted to be don on them. |
|
|
s1(3)(a) OLA 1984 states |
The occupier owes a duty if he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists. (Rhind v Astbury Waterpark --> were unaware so not liable) |
|
|
s1(3)(b) OLA 1984 states |
The occupier will owe a duty if he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger. (Higgs v Foster --> not expected on premises so not liable under 1984 act) (Donoghue v Folkestone --> date and time of year are relevant to whether occupier knows) |
|
|
s1(3)(c) OLA 1984 states |
The occupier will owe a duty if the risk is one where he may be expected to offer some protection. (Ratcliffe v McConnell --> not if adult trespasser is injured back obvious dangers) (Keown --> same for children) |
|
|
s1(4) OLA 1984 states |
A duty owed is to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to see the tespasser is not injured by reason of danger. (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council --> doesn't need to spend lots of money to make safe from obvious dangers) |
|
|
OLA 1984 Warnings |
Warnings given are generally unlikely to be effective in case of children/young people. (Westwood v Post Office --> door should have been locked) |
|
|
What defences can be used for OLA 1984? |
Can use defence of volenti. (Ratcliffe v McConnell --> was an obvious danger) |
