Occupiers Liability

Front 1

What?

Back 1

Arise when the c is injured as a result of the state of the premises e.g. uneven/slippery floor

2 relevant statutes;
-Occupiers liability act 1957--> visitors

-Occupiers liability act 1984-->trespassers

Front 2

Visitor or trespasser?

Back 2

A visitor is lawfully on the premises, usually through permission

A trespasser is 'someone who goes onto land without invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the occupier or if known, is practically objected to'- Robert Addie & son v dumbreck

Front 3

VISITORS

STEP 1. Visitors permission

Back 3

1. express permission or license

2.implied permission by conduct

3.lawful authority

4.contractual permission

***Visitors owed an automatic doc under OLA 57.

much high doc than to trespassers bc allowed them to be there

Front 4

Visitors-express permission

Back 4

Expressly told to go onto land but doesn't give permission to do whatever

Can be restricted by;

-area--> The calgarth, 'when you invite him to use staircase, not to slide down banister'

Pearson v coleman brothers, child climbs into lions case at zoo would have been trespasser if adult but let off cus kiddo

-time--> stone v taffe, c fell down staircase once pub closed, permission expired

-purpose-->R v Smith &Jones, son exceeded permission when burgled house

Front 5

Visitors-implied permission by conduct

Back 5

e.g. postman on land to post mail

Depends on conduct and how much you have tried to restrict the person to be on your land

Cooke v Midland GRW of Ireland--> kids on railway got hurt on railway but nothing done to restrict them so visitors

Edward v Railway executive--> CONTRAST with above bc were trespassers as railway made efforts to restrict kids

Lowrey v walker--> implied permission given entire time for shortcut so warnings of horse had to be given or fences as risk had to be established so occupier liable for trespasser

Front 6

Visitors-lawful activity

Back 6

e.g. fireman/policeman to exercise warrant

--> s2(6) OLA 57

--> Higgs v foster--> police didn't have warrant so was trespasser

Front 7

Visitors-contractual permission

Back 7

e.g. someone paid to attend theater to watch play

--> s5(1) OLA 57

Front 8

STEP 2: Who is the occupier?

Back 8

Anyone with sufficient degree of control over premises

Not always the owner of premises; independent contractors can also be occupiers of the part of the premises they control-->AMF international v magnet bowling

Not always one owner--> Wheat v Lacon (both brewery and ladlord had sufficient degree of control so both occupiers

Harris v birkenhead (occupier doesn't have to be living there and have physical presence

Front 9

STEP 3: Is there a premises?

Back 9

s1(3)(a) OLA 1957--> Any fixed or moveable structure...

s1(2) defines premises for trespasser

Front 10

STEP 4: DOC

Back 10

Look at OLA 1957 to establish doc (no test) (highlight!!)

-s2(1) OLA 1957; 'an occupier of premises owes...the common duty of care to all his visitors'

-s2(2) OLA 1957; 'a duty to take such care...is reasonable..for which he is invited by occupier'

**don't need to figure out the standard of care--> just of reasonably competent occupier

***emphasizes that particular visitor is safe, not just premises

Front 11

STEP 5: BREACH

Back 11

*Cases from negligence can be used here as well as..

-Horton v Jackson; occupier of golf course was not liable as chance of hitting eye playing golf was unlikely and unpreventable

-Laverton v Kiapasha; closing store for slippery floor was excessive as already taken relevant action and c was drunk anyway

Front 12

Factors considering breach

Back 12

-Children

-Experts

-independent contractors

Front 13

Children

Back 13

Glasgow corp v taylor; bush w poisonous berries bound to have been picked by kids so signs needed. kid was visitor of part (doctrine of allurement)

Pearson v coleman bros; child climbs into lions case at zoo would have been trespasser if adult but let off cus kiddo (doctrine of allurement)

Edwards v Railway; CONTRAST WITH ABOVE 2 showing claim for trespass succeeded even though kiddo but cus occupier had done enough to keep him out

Phipps v Rochester corp;hildren should've been supervised by parents so trespasser for going onto building site

Perry v butlins holiday world; CONTRAST ABOVE with Butlins environment expected to be safe

Jolly v London Borough of Sutton; if occupier has knowledge of alluring/dangerous thing on premises and doesn't do anything about it, they are held liable. also abandoned boat was alluring. children are visitors here 2

s2(3)(a);'occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful'

Front 14

Experts

Back 14

s23(b); 'may expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks'

A high duty of care bc expect them to know of risks of job

Roles v Nathan; chimney sweepers were liable for own death as occupier couldn't have physically stopped them and didnt have to

Front 15

Independent contractors

Back 15

a lot of overlap with exerts bc experts too sometimes

s2(4)(b); occupier can escape liability if;

1.is reasonable in appointing an independent contractor (is it a task for someone else to do)

2. choose suitable contractor (insurance? cheapest? experience?

3. supervises and checks the work?

Haseldine v daw & sons; no 3. impossible to do when technical like fixing lifts-inappropriate to supervise

Woodward v mayor of hastings; CONTRAST ABOVE with cleaners as cleaning isn't technical so occupier is partially liable

**when independent contract is liable, bring in another claim after occupiers

Front 16

Notices (trespassers and visitors)

Back 16

Diff types; to warn danger (CAUTION! BEWARE!) or n exclusion clause (The management accepts no liability for loss or damage) or to limit where someone can go (KEEP OUT).

Last one treats visitor as trespasser**

*s2(4)(a)- warnings will discharge a duty if '..enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe'

Roles v Nathan; Occupier must provide visitor with warning, explanation and alternative route.
Occupiers must also provide trespassers with adequate warning- duty us much lower

Staples v West dorset; CONTRAST ABOVE with cases where danger is completely obvious- less req to warn as visitor should know

**exclusion notices- look at Consumer rights act s65(1) 2015; cannot exclude liability for death or PI

**HOWEVER there is a minimum duty of 'common humanity--> BRB v herrington- to not set out to hurt them intentionally

Front 17

Causation/remoteness/defences

Back 17

Only consider if something specific to discuss.

Nothing in act though (no req to discuss really)

Usually hard to raise issue of causation

Usual defences apply

Front 18

Defences

Back 18

Normal defences

e.g.

-contrib neg--> Revill v Newbury

-consent--> Titchener v BRB

Front 19

Structure for visitor

Back 19

1. Parties

2. Tort

3. Loss/damage

4. Visitor

5. Occupier

6. Premises

7. DOC s2(1) DON’T TALK ABOUT CAPARO BC NO CASE JUST STATUTES IN THESE Q

8. Standard s2(2)

9. Breach s2(3) and s2(4) warning?

10. Causation ( act is silent so only need to consider if there is something significant)

11. Remoteness (act is silent so only need to consider if there is something significant) no causation and remoteness for this q

12. Exclusion/limitation clause (generally can exclude everything other than humanity)

13. Defenses (normal defenses)

14. Remedy

15. conclusion

Front 20

TRESSPASSERS

Back 20

Definition from Robert addie & son v dumbreck; A trespasser is 'someone who goes onto land without invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the occupier or if known, is practically objected to'

Always look at status of what they're doing and subj things like age to see if has understanding--> Titchener v BRB (15 yr old has good understanding so trespasser)

NO AUTOMATIC DUTY UNDER OLA 1984 (UNLIKE VISITORS)

Front 21

Duty to trespassers

Back 21

Occupiers owe a duty; test from s1(3):

-aware of danger

-knows trespasser is in territory

-risk is one against which he should offer protection for

ALL MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO OWE DUTY FOR PI ONLY (no prop damage)

Front 22

Breach, warnings and damage

Back 22

s1(4)- standard

S1(5)-warnings can be sufficient to discharge duty

S1(9)-Personal injury and death

S1(8) not damage to property

Revill v newbury; occupier shot burglar and even though he didn't owe a duty to him, he breached duty of humanity so contrib neg

Tomlinson v Congleton; liability reduced on public bodies like swimming pools, also ignored notice

Keown v coventry healthcare NHS; no knowledge of defendant so not liable

Front 23

Exclusion clauses

Back 23

CRA 2015 doesn't refer to OLA 1984 (only 57)

however duty of humanity still occurs- BRB V herrington

Front 24

Structure for trespasser

Back 24

Trespasser; OLA 1984

1. Parties

2. Tort

3. Loss/damage

4. Trespasser

5. Occupier

6. Premises

7. DOC S1(3 to satisfy test)

8. Standard s1(4)

9. Breach warning?

10. Causation

11. Remoteness (same as above both causation and remoteness are silent)

12. Exclusion/limitation clauses Notices?

13. Defences

14. Remedy

15. conc