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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intro |
Occupiers’ Liability is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. |
|
|
Section 1(C) |
Under Section 1 C must be a lawful visitor on D’s premises. They must have either express permission, implied permission, or a legal right of entry such as a police officer with a warrant, or a gas meter reader. |
|
|
Occupier with control |
D must be the occupier, with control of the premises, as in Wheat v E. Lacon and Co. |
|
|
Section 1(3)(a) |
‘Premises’ must fall within the very wide definition under Section 1(3)(a): ’any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft’, and could even include a ladder as in Wheeler v Copas. |
|
|
Section 2(1) Adult visitor |
Under Section 2(1) D owes C a ‘common duty of care’. |
|
|
Section 2(2) |
Under Section 2(2), D must “take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the reasons he was invited”, as in in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme. |
|
|
Reasonable precautions |
D must take reasonable precautions to keep C reasonably (not completely) safe, and will be compared to the reasonable occupier |
|
|
Reasonable precautions cases |
as in Vaughan v Menlove, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks or reasonably competent professional occupier as in Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC. |
|
|
Section 2(3)(b) Skilled visitor |
Under Section 2(3)(b) D can expect that a skilled visitor when carrying out work will “appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incidental to it”, as in Roles v Nathan. This does not apply to rescuers such as firemen, as in Ogwo v Taylor. |
|
|
Section 2(1) |
Under Section 2(1) D owes C a ‘common duty of care’.
|
|
|
Section 2(2) |
Under Section 2(2), D must “take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the reasons he was invited”, as in in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme.
|
|
|
Section 2(3)(a) Child visitor |
However, C is a child, and under Section 2(3)(a) D “must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”, as in Perry v Butlins Holiday World. |
|
|
Section 2(4)(a) |
Under Section 2(4)(a) an oral or written warning can be a full defence if it is effective so that “it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe”, as in Rae v Mars. |
|
|
Child standard of care |
A child is more at risk than an adult, so D’s standard of care will be judged subjectively and will be higher, as in Moloney v Lambeth BC |
|
|
Allurement |
D must guard against the risk of an allurement, as in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor. |
|
|
Allurement 2 |
If there is an allurement, there will only be liability if the injury was reasonably foreseeable, as in Jolley v Sutton, without previous warnings, as in Liddle v Yorkshire CC. |
|
|
Supervision |
Very young children must be supervised by their parents, as in Phipps v Rochester. |
|
|
Section 2(4)(b) Independent contractor |
Under Section 2(4)(b), D may be able to pass liability on to Z as an independent contractor because the state of the premises was due to Z, as in Ferguson v Welsh. |
|
|
Reasonable steps of competency |
D must show that they took reasonable steps to check that Z was competent (Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club), that it was reasonable to have given the work to Z, and that they checked that any ‘non-technical work’ had been properly done (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, Haseldine v Daw). There is no duty to check ‘technical work’. |
|
|
Section 2(4)(1) Part 1 Defences |
Under Section 2(4)(a) an oral or written warning can be a full defence if it is effective so that “it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe”, as in Rae v Mars. |
|
|
Section 2(4)(1) Part 2 |
There is no duty to warn against obvious risks, as in Darby v National Trust. A warning may be less effective in respect of a child, depending on their age and understanding. |
|
|
Contributory negligence |
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that any damages to the claimant can be reduced by a percentage according to the extent to which the claimant has contributed to their own injuries, with even 100% a possibility, as in Sayers v Harlow. |
|
|
Volenti non fit injuria |
Volenti non fit injuria (consent) is a full defence under Section 2(5), where the claimant fully understood the nature of the risk rather than just being aware of its existence, and exercised free choice, as in Darby v National Trust. |
|
|
Exclusion clause |
An Exclusion Clause under Section 2(1) can limit or exclude liability, provided it is ‘reasonable’ under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. |
|
|
Damages act 1996 Remedy |
As a REMEDY, for C’s personal injury [say what it is] the court may award compensatory damages under the DAMAGES ACT 1996, where the aim is to put the claimant in their pretort position. |
|
|
Pecuniary/Non-pecuniary losses |
Pecuniary (financial) losses will be claimed, such as medical bills. Non-pecuniary (nonfinancial) losses will be claimed, such as loss of amenity for the loss of chance to enjoy hobbies/activities. |
|
|
General damages |
General damages (cannot be precisely calculated) may be awarded for loss of amenity, pain and suffering, a ‘tariff’ award for the injury itself, future loss of earnings and medical care after the trial. |
|
|
Special damages |
Special damages (can be calculated precisely) may be awarded for loss of earnings and medical care up to the trial, and for any damage to property [say what it is] based on the cost of repair or replacement using the market value at the time of the damage. |
|
|
Duty to mitigate loss |
C is under a duty to mitigate loss, which means to keep the loss to a reasonable level by seeking prompt medical treatment [and/or getting the property repaired or replaced promptly]. |
