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;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Origin |
The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 introduced to give a limited duty of care towards trespassers. Addie v Dumbreck > a duty of ‘common humanity’. British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 (Under this act compensation is only available for personal injury) |
|
|
Stage 1 |
1. Is the defendant an occupier? there is no statutory test > test for finding out who an occupier is in case law Wheat v E Lacon & Co > more than one occupier (manager & staff Harris v Birkenhead > controls building (Local authority) Bailey v Armes > not occupier it unaware of premises Owner Resident |
|
|
Stage 2 |
2. What are premises? s.1 (3)(a) OA 1957: person having occupation or control of any ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle, and aircraft’ lifts and even a ladder have been included |
|
|
Stage 3 |
3. When will occupier owe a duty? __________________________________________________ An occupier will only owe a duty under s.1(3) if he: • Is aware the danger exists or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists • knows or believes the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger • the risk is one that some protection should be offered against Occupier must ‘take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances’ to prevent injury to the visitor. The standard of care will vary from case to case. greater the risk > more precautions the occupier will have to take to avoid it. ______________________________________________ Things to be considered by the courts include: • Nature of premises • Degree of danger • How practical is it to take precautions? • Age of trespasser |
|
|
Stage 4 |
4. Is claimant an adult trespasser? __________________________________________________ 1. The occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by an obvious danger. Ratcliff v McConnell 2. Time & day is relevant when deciding if duty is owed Donoghue v Folkestone Properties 3. An occupier does not have to spend a lot of money making premises safe from obvious dangers Tomlinson v Congleton BC 4. The occupier will not be liable if he had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser Higgs v Foster 5. The occupier will not be liable if he was not aware of the danger/had no reason to suspect the danger existed Rhind v Astbury Water Park |
|
|
Stage 5 |
5. Is the claimant a child trespasser? The same rules apply and judges have used the same approach Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust Baldaccino v West Wittering |
|
|
Stage 6 |
6. Are there any defences? 1. Contributory negligence 2. Volenti 3. Warning – effective defence to an adult claimant especially if it warns of the danger in clear terms. Success for child depends on the age and understanding of the child Westwood v Post Office |
