Occupier's Liability

Front 1

Robert Addie v Dumbrek

Back 1

Lord Dunedin defined trespassers as those who 'enter the premises without invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown, or if known, practically objected to'

- This was codified into the 1984 OL Act. The 1957 and 1984 acts run alongside the common law in application.

Front 2

Herrington v BRB

Back 2

- Introduced the principle of a 'common humanity' owed to a trespasser which was codified into the 1984 OL Act following a recommendation by the law commission.

Front 3

Wheat v Lacon

Back 3

Held: An occupier is defined as someone who 'exercises sufficient control' over the land.

Front 4

Collier v AWA

Back 4

Held: There can be more than one occupier of the land.

Front 5

AMF v Magnet Bowling

Back 5

Held: An independent contractor can be held to be liable for their own actions if they assert a sufficient degree of control over the premises. This also depends on whether the occupier has delegated responsibility.

Front 6

Wheeler v Copas

Back 6

First look to s1(3)(a) then discuss this case, in which a ladder was held to be premises. Shows the broad definition given by the act.

Front 7

The Calgarth

Back 7

Held: Visitor's permission can be limited by area.

Front 8

Stone v Taffe

Back 8

Held: Visitor's permission can be limited by time.

Front 9

R v Jones & Smith

Back 9

Held: Visitor's permission can be limited by purpose.

Front 10

Pearson v Coleman

Back 10

Held: Whether an occupier has limited a visitors permission comes down to a subjective test. Signs must be taken into account by the expected visitor. If the visitor should have understood the sign, they will come under s1(3) OLA 1984 as a trespasser.

Front 11

Harris v Birkenhead

Back 11

Held: Ownership/possession is not required in order to be an occupier as long as there is control.

Front 12

Ward v Tesco

Back 12

Held: Under s2(2), the occupier must meet the standard of a reasonable occupier, taking reasonable care to ensure that the visitor is safe when using the premises for the purpose for which she is invited.

Front 13

Haley v LEB

Back 13

Held: All visitors includes those with ailments (E.G The blind). The visitor, not the premises need to be safe.

Front 14

s2(3)(a) OLA 1957

Back 14

- States that occupiers need to take into account that children will be less careful than adults. (Glasgow Corp v Taylor, Jolley v Sutton, Phipps v Rochester, Perry v Butlins)
- Usefulness of s2(3)(a) diminished by these cases.

Front 15

s2(4)(b) OLA 1957

Back 15

- Allows occupier to delegate liability to an independant contractor if the 3 conditions are satisfied.
1. Reasonable to entrust.
2. Competency.
3. Supervision.

Front 16

Haseldine v Daw

Back 16

Held: Liability could be shifted to a lift engineer as it was a specialist profession and the risk was non-obvious and one that the occupier couldn't reasonably have been expected to be aware of.

Front 17

Woodhouse v MOH

Back 17

Held: School liable as an occupier for not checking that the janitor had cleared ice off of a slippery step.

Front 18

s2(4)(a)

Back 18

- Consider whether a warning sign put up by the occupier does enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

Front 19

Staples v Dorset BC

Back 19

Fact: A man fell on a slippery sea wall and sought a claim under occupier's liability as he had had no warning.

Held: The claim failed. If the danger is obvious, there may be no need for a specific warning. Floodgates argument.

Front 20

Roles v Nathan

Back 20

Fact: Two chimney sweeps were employed and were repeatedly advised to turn the boiler off before they began work. They ignored the advice and were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning.

Denning 'The rickety bridge'.

Held: The risks were incident to their calling and the warnings issued were clear and the brothers should have heeded them.

Front 21

Disclaimers

Back 21

- Always do after you establish liability. According to OLA 1957, all attempts to exclude/limit liability are subject to UCTA 1977.

Front 22

s2(1) UCTA 1977

Back 22

Cannot exclude liability for PI arising from negligence where there is a course of business between the parties s1(3).

Unless 'reasonable' to exclude s2(2) UCTA 1977.

Front 23

Duty of care to a trespasser only exists if s1(3)(a)-(c) OLA 1984 are satisfied.

Back 23

- Aware of danger?
- Aware that people are in the vicinity?
- A danger which D should protect against?

If satisfied, s1(4) imposes a duty of care to ensure they do not suffer PI. (Note: only PI s1(8)).

Front 24

s1(5) OLA 1984

Back 24

- The duty can be excluded by reasonable notice.

Front 25

Ashdown v Williams

Back 25

Held: Sufficient for the occupier to post a clear and unequivocal notice excluding liability.

- Check whether notice is small/faded.

Front 26

Tomlinson v Congleton

Back 26

Facts: Boy broke his neck diving into shallow water.

Held: No liability as there was sufficient and adequate warnings. The danger was obvious and the risk arose from claimant's own actions.

Front 27

White v Blackmore

Back 27

Facts: A car crashed into ropes and killed the claimant.

Held: Defence of volenti unsuccessful as while the claimant had accepted the risks in racing, he had not accepted the risk of the negligent construction of the ropes.

Front 28

Lowry v Walker

Back 28

Held: Implied permission to use the shortcut, shouldn't of been injured by wild horse.

Front 29

Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Back 29

Facts: Child ate bright poisonous berries from a bush.

Held: Established the doctrine of allurement whereby children are enticed onto the land by interesting things.The child was lawfully present on the premises.

Front 30

Jolley v Sutton

Back 30

Facts: An old boat enticed the boys. Must consider the circumstances of each case.

Held: The vessel being a foreseeable hazard to children introduced the requirement that it should have been removed. Duty of care towards children was breached.

Front 31

Perry v Butlins

Back 31

Held: A higher degree of care must be exercised when children are likely to be in the vicinity.

Front 32

Phipps v Rochester

Back 32

Facts: A child fell down a trench on a building site.

Held: Occupier may expect reasonable parents to supervise very young children.

Front 33

UCTA - OLA 1984

Back 33

OLA 1984 is silent as to whether it applies, but remember BRB v Herrington - There is a common level of humanity required.

Front 34

Revill v Newbury

Back 34

Facts: Old man hid in a shed and discharged his shotgun at a burglar.

Held: Damages reduced by 1/3 due to his illegal activity.

Front 35

Titchener v BRB

Back 35

Held: Use an objective rather than a subjective test when looking at the claimant's risk and volenti.