Occupier's Liability

Front 1

Difference between Occupiers' Liability and RYLANDS V FLETCHER.

Back 1

R+F- only focused on C's own land.

Occupier's- C's actions on D's land.

Front 2

Difference between the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 + 1984.

Back 2

1957- covers liability for lawful visitors.

1984- covers liability for trespassers.

Front 3

Principle of WHEAT and LACON

Back 3

There may be two or more occupiers.

Front 4

Not required for D to be an occupier according to WHEAT AND LACON.

Back 4

Did not matter if they were in physical occupation.

Front 5

Premises.

Back 5

Includes land and permanent buildings, but also covers fixed and movable structures.

Front 6

S.2(1) OLA 1957 gives a common duty of care to protection to

Back 6

Lawful visitors.

Front 7

Categories of lawful visitors.

Back 7

1. Invitees.

2. Licensees.

3. Those with contractual permission.

4. Those given statutory rights of entry.

Front 8

Principle from LOWRY V WALKER.

Back 8

A license can be obtained through repeated trespass and D's failure to prevent people coming onto the land.

Front 9

Any actionable harm under OLA law must be a result of...

Back 9

D's break of the common duty of care.

Front 10

Definition of the common duty of care under s.2(2) OLA 1957 and applied in LAVERTON

Back 10

Has to take care in all reasonable circumstances to keep C reasonably safe on the premises in relation to damage caused by the state of the premises.

Front 11

S.2(3)(a) of the OL A 1957: Principle re lawful child visitors.

Back 11

The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.

Front 12

Principle from PHIPPs V ROCHESTER CORP.

Back 12

The council was not liable as an occupier is entitled to expect that parents should safeguard their own children.

Front 13

Principle from GLASGOW CORPORATION V TAYLOR.

Back 13

-D was liable.

-This is because they had failed to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe for a child of V's age.

Front 14

Principle from JOLLEY V LBC SUTTON.

Back 14

It was foreseeable that, when the children would meddle with the boat, they would be at risk of some kind of physical injury.

Front 15

Principle of 2(3)(b) OLA 1957 and application in ROLES V NATHAN.

Back 15

The court held that the occupier was not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to guard against a danger associated with their trade.

Front 16

Application of s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 in SALMON V SEAFARERS.

Back 16

-D was liable.

-Because C's injuries were reasonably foreseeable, even though C had taken normal safeguards as a fireman to protect himself.

Front 17

Under s.4(b) you cannot recover from an occupier for harm caused by an independent contractor if:

Back 17

It was reasonable for the occupier to have given the work.

Front 18

Application of s.2(4)(b) in HASELDINE V DAW AND SON.

Back 18

It was reasonable to give the specialised work to a specialised engineering company.

Front 19

Application of principle at s(4)(b) in WOODWARD.

Back 19

The occupier was liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly, and the danger should have bee obvious to them.

Front 20

How effective must a warning be to be a defence under the OLA 1957?

Back 20

A warning is ineffective unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises.

Front 21

Principles regarding warnings from RAE V MARS.

Back 21

The court held that the unusual nature of the hazard meant that a specific warning of the immediacy of the danger should have been given by the occupiers.

Front 22

Occupiers may limit liability to lawful visitors by either of these two methods.

Back 22

-Contributory negligence.

-Exemption clauses.

Front 23

Liability cannot be excluded for...

Back 23

-Children.

-When the visitor is a consumer.

-Business-to-business contracts.

Front 24

OLA 1984 does not allow trespassers to recover damages for ...

Back 24

-Anything other than death or personal injury.

Front 25

First element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984.

Back 25

1. He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

Front 26

Second element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984.

Back 26

2. He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger.

Front 27

Third element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984.

Back 27

3. The risk of harm to a trespasser resulting from that danger is one in which, in all the circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection.

Front 28

No OLA 84 liability in RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK because...

Back 28

- The court held that no duty of care was owed due to s.1(3)(a.)

-The occupier did not know of the danger nor did they have reasonable grounds to believe that it existed.

Front 29

No OLA 84 liability in HIGGS V. FOSTER because...

Back 29

-Did not owe a duty of care due to s.1(3)(b).

-The police officer was a trespasser as he did not have a statutory right to enter. D did not have reasonable grounds to believe they would enter.

Front 30

No OLA 84 liability in DONOGHUE V FOLKSTONE PROPERTIES because...

Back 30

-No duty of care owed.

-D did not know, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that C would be swimming from the slipway.

Front 31

Level of the duty owed to trespassers under OLA 1984.

Back 31

Limited duty of care.

Front 32

Principle from TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BC

Back 32

??

Front 33

3 ways to avoid complete or partial liability to trespassers.

Back 33

-Contributory negligence.

-Complete defence of consent.

-Warnings.

Front 34

Difference in the requirements for warning between 1957 and 1984 Acts.

Back 34

1957- enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises.

1984- does not have to enable the trespasser to be reasonably safe.

Front 35

S.2(3)(a) of the OLA 1957 and application in ROLES V NATHAN.

Back 35

- The occupier was not liable.

-The danger was associated with the claimants' trade.

Front 36

Application of s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 in SALMON AND SEAFARERS.

Back 36

If C's injuries are reasonably foreseeable, even if they themselves have taken safeguards against it, D is still liable

Front 37

Under s.2(4)(b) you cannot recover from an occupier from harm caused by an independent contractor if:

Back 37

D breached the common duty of care

Front 38

Application of s.2(4)(b) in HASELDINE V DAW AND SON.

Back 38

If the work is highly specialist and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialised worker, then D is not liable.

Front 39

Application of principle s.2(4)(b) in WOODWARD.

Back 39

If the occupier has not taken reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly, the danger should have been obvious to them.

Front 40

How effective must a warning be to be a defence under OLA 1957?

Back 40

A warning is ineffective unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises.

Front 41

Principle regarding warnings from RAE V MARS.

Back 41

If the hazard is of an unusual nature, there must be a specific warning of the immediacy of the danger given by the Occupier's.

Front 42

Occupiers may limit liability to lawful visitors by either of these two methods.

Back 42

-Contributory negligence.

-Exemption clauses.

Front 43

Liability cannot be excluded for...

Back 43

A visitor (but only applies for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.)