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;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd |
An occupier is someone who has 'a sufficient degree of control over premises' |
|
|
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor |
Where the danger is an allurement, an occupier must therefore do even more to safeguard a child's safety than where it is not |
|
|
Phipps v Rochester Corporation |
Occupiers will have complied with their duty to a very young child visitor if they make their premises reasonably safe for a child who is accompanied by the sort of guardian by whom the occupier is entitled, in all the circumstances, to expect a child to be accompanied. |
|
|
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council |
Test for causation and remoteness of damage is the same as for common law Negligence
|
|
|
White v Blackmore |
At common law a clearly worded notice that covers the liability in question will be valid if reasonable steps have been taken to bring it to the visitors' attention |
|
|
Buckland v Guildford Gas Light & Coke Co |
(In Negligence, contractor owes duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm to people he could reasonably expect to be affected by his work) This includes trespassers |
