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
|
Lowry v Walker (implied permission) |
Claimant crossed defendant's field using shortcut and was attacked by horses. Liability arose. Take away: there is implied permission where there is repeated trespass without intervention |
|
|
Edwards (repeated respass insufficient) |
Where there are steps taken to prevent repeated trespass, there will be no implied permission. Sporadic reparation of fence absolved liability |
|
|
Glasgow Corp v Taylor (allurement) |
Poisonous plant not fenced off, child ate berries. Liability arose as the berries acted as an allurement and no steps were taken to ensure safety of the visitor. |
|
|
Gould v McAuliffe (restricted access, no indication) |
Claimant entered back of bar in search of toilet and was attacked by dog. Defence of restricted area was rejected as there was no sign or indication that visitors should not be there. |
|
|
Warnings |
1957: Unless the warning is sufficient in all circumstances to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe, liability will arise. 1984: A warning of the danger will be sufficient |
|
|
Phipps (parental supervision) |
Occupiers will not face liability where a parent could have ensured their safety. Law does not simply want to allow parents to absolve their blame and transfer it to another |
|
|
Wheat v Lacon (occupier?) |
Visitor died falling down badly lit staircase. Both brewery owners and Richardsons were considered occupiers as they exercised sufficient control over the premises. In the case of lightbulbs the duty would be for the Richardsons and not the owners. However, facts did not indicate that the stairwell was overly dangerous and the Richardsons could not be blamed for a stranger taking the lightbulb |
|
|
Ogwo v Taylor (duty of care to professionals) |
Occupier was liable for fireman's injuries. Where a professional is injured in the course of his duty despite exercising all professional skill and care the occupier will face liability for the danger |
|
|
Darby (obvious risks) |
No duty to warn of obvious risks (adult claimant drowned in pool of murky water). Risk of danger would have been clear to an adult |
|
|
Requirements |
Occupier is liable if they are aware or have reasonable grounds to believe that danger exists Occupier is liable if the risk is one which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer protection from |
|
|
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties |
Claimant had diving experience via military. Whilst drunk he dived into lake from slipway and hit grid pile breaking his neck. Defendant argued that security guards were present to ensure prevention of injury. Also that the claimant's experience should be taken into account as well as the fact that there is low tide in winter making the risk more obvious. Also, occupier had no reason to believe that claimant was going to do what he did. NO LIABILITY |
|
|
Tomlinson v Congleton (state of premises not conduct of visitor) |
Country park with dangerous lake. Signs saying no swimming as well as rangers to prevent people from doing so. Claimant dived in, broke neck and became tetraplegic. No liability as claimant induced all his own injuries |
|
|
Geary (restricted permission) |
Lady slid down pub in bannister. This was in excess of her permission to be in the pub as a visitor. She was allowed in there to drink, not to slide down the bannister. |
|
|
Swain v Puri |
Liability for non-visitors will only arise where the occupier is aware or has reasonable grounds to believe that danger exists |
|
|
Staples v West Dorset DC (obvious risk) |
Claimant sued for damages after slipping on wet algae and fracturing his hip. The lack of warning signs was irrelevant, the dangers of wet algae were obvious and known to him |
|
|
Ferguson/ Gwilliam (independent contractors) |
Occupier not liable for injury resulting from independent contractor so long as reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the work was done properly and that the contractor was competent (i.e. had insurance cover - Gwilliam) |
|
|
Tichtener (child trespasser)
|
Courts will take into account the knowledge and level of understanding of a child that age
|
