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;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Slater v Clay Cross Co [1956] -> pre-1957 Act => common law negligence |
Injury suffered on premises which is not caused by condition of premises, but, for instance, by a negligently driven car, is said to result from the ‘activity’ duty. An illustration of how general law of negligence applies to an activity on premises is provided in this case by Lord Denning: If a landowner is driving his car down his private drive and meets someone lawfully walking upon it, then he is under a duty to take reasonable care so as not to injure the walker; and his duty is the same no matter whether it is his gardener coming up with plants, a tradesman delivering goods, a friend coming to tea, or a flag seller seeking a charitable gift. |
Lord Denning: his duty is the same no matter whether it is his gardener coming up with plants, a tradesman delivering goods, a friend coming to tea, or a flag seller seeking a charitable gift. |
|
|
Ogwo v Taylor [1988] (HL) => common law negligence |
A fireman claimed for steam injuries he suffered as he was fighting a fire in a confined space at D’s premises. The occupier had put the fireman at risk by carelessly creating a danger on his premises and on this basis the fireman succeeded in common law negligence, rather than occupiers’ liability. |
fireman claimed for steam injuries he suffered as he was fighting a fire in a confined space at D’s premises. |
|
|
Wheeler v Copas [1981] 3 All ER 405 => What can be occupied? (s.1(3)(a)) |
A ladder was held to come within the definition.
|
|
|
|
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] (HL) => Who is an occupier? (s.1(2)) |
In Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd the D brewing company were owners of a pub which was run by a manager. The company granted him a licence to use the top floor of premises for his private accommodation. His wife took in paying guests and one evening as it was getting dark a guest fell down back staircase in the private portion of the premises and was killed. handrail on stairs was too short and did not stretch to bottom of staircase and someone had removed light bulb from the top of stairs. HL held that there can be two or more occupiers at any one time if they share control of premises. Although the grant of a license to occupy top floor had been made to manager, D still had sufficient control over premises to remain occupiers and therefore under a duty of care. On facts of case the duty to the deceased had not been broken and D were not liable. |
His wife took in paying guests and one evening as it was getting dark a guest fell down back staircase in the private portion of the premises and was killed |
|
|
The Calgarth [1927] => Who is a lawful visitor? (s.1(2)) |
A person who has a common law or statutory right of entry is a lawful visitor. A visitor may have permission to enter only until a certain time or only to enter certain parts of premises, but occupier must make clear limits of permission. E.g. e.g. hotel signs: only hotel guests beyond this point. Scrutton LJ: When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used. |
When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used. |
|
|
Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] (EWCA) => ‘common duty of care’ (s.2(2))nbnnbb |
duty of care owed by an occupier to a visitor on his premises under s.2(2) of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 was considered in this case. C suffered a leg injury when she stepped into a hole on a village green which had been inserted during village fete to accommodate a maypole. CA said that there was a danger in setting too high a standard of care as it could lead to inhibiting consequences, namely reduction in or prohibition of traditional activities on village greens. Baker LJ pointed out: ‘Accidents happen, and sometimes they are what can be described as pure accidents in sense that victim cannot recover damages for resulting injury because fault cannot be established.’ |
C suffered a leg injury when she stepped into a hole on a village green which had been inserted during village fete to accommodate a maypole. |
|
|
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] (HL) (pre-Act case) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] D were liable when a seven-year-old child died from eating poisonous berries which he had picked from a shrub in a public park. The berries looked like cherries or large blackcurrants and were found to act as an ‘allurement’ to children. It was alleged that local authority knew of poisonous nature of berries but shrub was not fenced nor was any warning of danger given. |
child died from eating poisonous berries |
|
|
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] QB (pre-Act case) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Phipps v Rochester Corporation (a pre-Act case), a boy aged five and his sister aged seven walked across a large open space which was being developed by D. It was known to D that people crossed their land but they apparently took no action. The child fell into a trench that had been dug in middle of open space and broke his leg. Although trench would not have been obvious to a child D were not liable. Devlin J placed responsibility for small children primarily on their parents and concluded that both parents and occupier must act reasonably. |
child fell into a trench that had been dug in middle of open space and broke his leg |
|
|
Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) 81 LGR 460 => Children (s.2(3)(a)) => applied Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] |
reasoning in Phipps v Rochester Corp was followed in Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) where a seven-year-old girl fell off a steep slope which was situated opposite block of flats where she lived. Her father stated in evidence that he had not considered slope to be dangerous and CA concluded that if child’s father did not consider area dangerous, D could not be asked to achieve a higher standard of care. |
seven-year-old girl fell off a steep slope which was situated opposite block of flats where she lived |
|
|
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] question was whether a holiday site owner was liable for drowning of a child in a pond, by failing to highlight dangers and bring pond’s location or existence of an access pathway to parent’s attention. trial judge found that by failing to give warnings of that nature to parents the site owner was in breach of their common duty of care. However, in allowing Bourne Leisure’s appeal, CA held that although an occupier ought reasonably to anticipate that small children might escape attention of parents and wander into places of danger, it does not follow that occupier is under a duty to make premises completely safe for children. problem with attaching blame in cases involving young children was noted by Lord Justice Moses who said that accidents may and do happen to young children without anyone job and for her she being at fault. (Sometimes parents just want someone else to blame, because of the terrible guilt they feel.) |
Child wandered off at a holiday park and fell into the pond and drowned |
|
|
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] (HL) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] a derelict boat, which was left abandoned for at least two years beside a block of flats on council’s land, was found to have constituted an allurement and a trap, but these were not causes of accident. immediate cause was that C, a 14-year-old boy, and a friend decided to repair the boat, using a car jack and some wood to prop it up. While boys were working on boat it fell off prop, crushing C, who suffered serious spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia with major complications. CA allowed council’s appeal against trial judge’s finding of liability on ground that although it was reasonably foreseeable that children would play on boat and be injured, it was not foreseeable that they would prop up boat and be injured by its falling off prop, and therefore C’s accident was of a different kind from anything council could reasonably have foreseen. However, HL approached question of what risk was foreseeable in case of children in much more generous terms. In finding that trial judge had been correct to consider reasonable forseeability of wider risk that children would meddle with a dilapidated boat and be at risk of physical injury, Lord Hoffmann noted: “it has been repeatedly said in cases about children that their ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others should never be underestimated. For these reasons, I think that judge’s broad description of risk as being that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury’ was correct one to adopt on facts of this case. The actual injury fell within that description and I would therefore allow appeal.” |
Jolly got injured when jacking up a dilapidated boat |
|
|
Roles v Nathan [1963] (CA) => Trade visitors (s.2(3)(b)) |
Two brothers, chimney sweeps, were called to clean an old coke-burning boiler. They were warned by an expert that sweep-hole and inspection chamber should be sealed before boiler was lit. They disregarded the warning and died when they were overcome with fumes. The occupier was not liable because: (1) his duty had been discharged by warning the sweeps of particular risks, and (2) he could reasonably expect a specialist to appreciate and guard against dangers arising from the very defect that he had been called to deal with. Lord Denning said: If it had been a different danger, as for instance if the stairs leading to cellar gave way, occupier might no doubt be responsible. => This does not mean that occupier is immune from liability: presumably occupier must accurately explain nature of problem. |
Two brothers, chimney sweeps, were called to clean an old coke-burning boiler. |
|
|
Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] (CA) => Warnings (s.2(4)(a)) |
claim in Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] concerned a duty to warn of obvious dangers. claimant’s bicycle pulled him off balance and caused him to fall over side of a small ornamental footbridge bordered by low parapets. He sustained severe injuries in fall and claimed that D should have: installed side protection barriers to bridge; warned of dangers posed by low sides of bridge; and carried out a sufficient risk assessment of risk presented by bridge to pedestrians. trial judge found that in these circumstances Borough was liable to C (subject to a finding of 40% contributory negligence). Borough appealed, arguing that there was no inherent danger pertaining to bridge that could give rise to a duty of care under 1957 Act and there was no duty to warn of obvious danger. The bridge had been there for many years (perhaps since 1860s) and there was no record of any accident occurring from its use. In an unanimous decision, CA allowed Borough’s appeal on ground that it had reached the requisite standard of care even though it did nothing in respect of objectively dangerous state of footbridge. |
claimant’s bicycle pulled him off balance and caused him to fall over side of a small ornamental footbridge bordered by low parapets |
|
|
English Heritage v Taylor [2016] (CA) => Warnings (s.2(4)(a)) |
In English Heritage v Taylor [2016] C was walking around an English Heritage historic site when he fell down an unmarked sheer drop into a moat. He sustained serious head injuries. In dismissing the defendant’s appeal against liability, the Court of Appeal held that in this case the danger was not obvious and there had been no warning sign. A sign warning of the sheer drop would have been likely to influence the behaviour of most sensible individuals.
|
|
|
|
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] (HL) (pre-Act case) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] D were liable when a seven-year-old child died from eating poisonous berries which he had picked from a shrub in a public park. The berries looked like cherries or large blackcurrants and were found to act as an ‘allurement’ to children. It was alleged that local authority knew of poisonous nature of berries but shrub was not fenced nor was any warning of danger given. |
child died from eating poisonous berries |
|
|
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] QB (pre-Act case) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Phipps v Rochester Corporation (a pre-Act case), a boy aged five and his sister aged seven walked across a large open space which was being developed by D. It was known to D that people crossed their land but they apparently took no action. The child fell into a trench that had been dug in middle of open space and broke his leg. Although trench would not have been obvious to a child D were not liable. Devlin J placed responsibility for small children primarily on their parents and concluded that both parents and occupier must act reasonably. |
child fell into a trench that had been dug in middle of open space and broke his leg |
|
|
Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) 81 LGR 460 => Children (s.2(3)(a)) => applied Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] |
reasoning in Phipps v Rochester Corp was followed in Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) where a seven-year-old girl fell off a steep slope which was situated opposite block of flats where she lived. Her father stated in evidence that he had not considered slope to be dangerous and CA concluded that if child’s father did not consider area dangerous, D could not be asked to achieve a higher standard of care. |
seven-year-old girl fell off a steep slope which was situated opposite block of flats where she lived |
|
|
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] question was whether a holiday site owner was liable for drowning of a child in a pond, by failing to highlight dangers and bring pond’s location or existence of an access pathway to parent’s attention. trial judge found that by failing to give warnings of that nature to parents the site owner was in breach of their common duty of care. However, in allowing Bourne Leisure’s appeal, CA held that although an occupier ought reasonably to anticipate that small children might escape attention of parents and wander into places of danger, it does not follow that occupier is under a duty to make premises completely safe for children. problem with attaching blame in cases involving young children was noted by Lord Justice Moses who said that accidents may and do happen to young children without anyone job and for her she being at fault. (Sometimes parents just want someone else to blame, because of the terrible guilt they feel.) |
Child wandered off at a holiday park and fell into the pond and drowned |
|
|
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] (HL) => Children (s.2(3)(a)) |
In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] a derelict boat, which was left abandoned for at least two years beside a block of flats on council’s land, was found to have constituted an allurement and a trap, but these were not causes of accident. immediate cause was that C, a 14-year-old boy, and a friend decided to repair the boat, using a car jack and some wood to prop it up. While boys were working on boat it fell off prop, crushing C, who suffered serious spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia with major complications. CA allowed council’s appeal against trial judge’s finding of liability on ground that although it was reasonably foreseeable that children would play on boat and be injured, it was not foreseeable that they would prop up boat and be injured by its falling off prop, and therefore C’s accident was of a different kind from anything council could reasonably have foreseen. However, HL approached question of what risk was foreseeable in case of children in much more generous terms. In finding that trial judge had been correct to consider reasonable forseeability of wider risk that children would meddle with a dilapidated boat and be at risk of physical injury, Lord Hoffmann noted: “it has been repeatedly said in cases about children that their ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others should never be underestimated. For these reasons, I think that judge’s broad description of risk as being that children would ‘meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury’ was correct one to adopt on facts of this case. The actual injury fell within that description and I would therefore allow appeal.” |
Jolly got injured when jacking up a dilapidated boat |
|
|
Roles v Nathan [1963] (CA) => Trade visitors (s.2(3)(b)) |
Two brothers, chimney sweeps, were called to clean an old coke-burning boiler. They were warned by an expert that sweep-hole and inspection chamber should be sealed before boiler was lit. They disregarded the warning and died when they were overcome with fumes. The occupier was not liable because: (1) his duty had been discharged by warning the sweeps of particular risks, and (2) he could reasonably expect a specialist to appreciate and guard against dangers arising from the very defect that he had been called to deal with. Lord Denning said: If it had been a different danger, as for instance if the stairs leading to cellar gave way, occupier might no doubt be responsible. => This does not mean that occupier is immune from liability: presumably occupier must accurately explain nature of problem. |
Two brothers, chimney sweeps, were called to clean an old coke-burning boiler. |
|
|
Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] (CA) => Warnings (s.2(4)(a)) |
claim in Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] concerned a duty to warn of obvious dangers. claimant’s bicycle pulled him off balance and caused him to fall over side of a small ornamental footbridge bordered by low parapets. He sustained severe injuries in fall and claimed that D should have: installed side protection barriers to bridge; warned of dangers posed by low sides of bridge; and carried out a sufficient risk assessment of risk presented by bridge to pedestrians. trial judge found that in these circumstances Borough was liable to C (subject to a finding of 40% contributory negligence). Borough appealed, arguing that there was no inherent danger pertaining to bridge that could give rise to a duty of care under 1957 Act and there was no duty to warn of obvious danger. The bridge had been there for many years (perhaps since 1860s) and there was no record of any accident occurring from its use. In an unanimous decision, CA allowed Borough’s appeal on ground that it had reached the requisite standard of care even though it did nothing in respect of objectively dangerous state of footbridge. |
claimant’s bicycle pulled him off balance and caused him to fall over side of a small ornamental footbridge bordered by low parapets |
|
|
English Heritage v Taylor [2016] (CA) => Warnings (s.2(4)(a)) |
In English Heritage v Taylor [2016] C was walking around an English Heritage historic site when he fell down an unmarked sheer drop into a moat. He sustained serious head injuries. In dismissing D’s appeal against liability, CA held that in this case danger was not obvious and there had been no warning sign. A sign warning of the sheer drop would have been likely to influence behaviour of most sensible individuals. |
C was walking around an English Heritage historic site when he fell down an unmarked sheer drop into a moat. |
|
|
Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941] (KB) => Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b)) |
In Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd [1941], D was not liable for C’s injuries when a lift in a block of flats fell to bottom of its shaft. accident happened as a result of negligence of a firm of independent contractors who D had employed to repair the lift. D had discharged his duty by employing a competent firm of engineers to make periodical inspections of lift. Having no technical skills meant that he could not be expected to check that work had been satisfactorily done. |
a lift in a block of flats fell to bottom of its shaft |
|
|
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] (KB) => Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b)) |
Haseldine was distinguished in Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] KB 174, where a child slipped on an icy at school and was injured. The step had been left in a dangerous condition by a cleaner, and even assuming that cleaner was an independent contractor, D were liable since there was no technical knowledge required to check the cleaning of a step. |
a child slipped on an icy at school and was injured |
|
|
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003] (CA) => Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b)) |
CA has ruled that it is just, fair and reasonable to impose liability on an occupier who allows an extra-hazardous activity to take place on their land without taking ordinary precautions to ensure that independent contractor has public liability insurance and a proper safety plan. In Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club the D club had allowed an independent contractor to carry out a pyrotechnic display on its land. club was liable for personal injuries of C (a voluntary and unpaid assistant of independent contractor) who suffered severe burns and other injuries during display. CA held that although case was not about a risk caused by state of premises under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, club was liable, along with contractors (who had no public liability insurance), in common law negligence because of its failure to engage a competent contractor. |
Cricket Club the D club had allowed an independent contractor to carry out a pyrotechnic display on its land. |
|
|
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2002] (CA) => Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b) |
The extent to which an occupier is under a duty to check if independent contractor is adequately insured was considered in Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals. As part of a fundraising event, defendant hospital engaged an independent contractor to supply and operate a ‘splat wall’ for visitors bouncing from a trampoline. When C was injured it was discovered that contractor’s public liability insurance had expired a few days before event. CA held that occupier owed a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that C was reasonably safe and to take steps to ensure that an independent contractor, who was to supply potentially hazardous equipment, was adequately insured (on facts of the case defendant hospital had not breached its duty under s.2(4)(b)). |
As part of a fundraising event, defendant hospital engaged an independent contractor to supply and operate a ‘splat wall’ for visitors bouncing from a trampoline. |
|
|
Ferguson v Welsh [1987] => Independent contractors (s.2(4)(b)) |
This case concerned a tender awarded by a district council for demolition of a building which stipulated that work must not be subcontracted without council’s consent. C was employee of a subcontractor who had been carrying out work without council’s consent who suffered serious injury as a result of subcontractor’s unsafe system of work. When it was discovered that neither main contractor nor the subcontractor were covered by insurance, employee sued local authority as occupiers of premises. HL found that district council was not liable. It would not ordinarily be reasonable to expect an occupier, having engaged a contractor whom he has reasonable grounds for regarding as competent, to supervise contractor’s activities in order to ensure that he was discharging his duties to his employees to observe a safe system of work. => What about checking that the contractor is adequately insured, as stipulated by Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust? Gwilliam was decided 15 years later. |
C was employee of a subcontractor who had been carrying out work without council’s consent who suffered serious injury as a result of subcontractor’s unsafe system of work. |
|
|
Addie v Dumbreck [1929] (HL) |
=> Case pre-1984 about the old rule about trespassers |
|
|
|
British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] (HL) => Case pre-1984 trying to reform old rule about trespassers |
Various attempts were made to reform law by judicial decisions. most important was decision of HL in British Railways Board v Herrington, which imposed on occupiers a ‘duty to act with common humanity’ towards trespassers. In this case six-year-old C was badly burned when he was trespassing on D’s land. child had obtained access to land through a gap in a chain link fence which had been trodden down. D knew that in past children had been seen on line, but they took no action. Although C was a trespasser he was allowed to recover in negligence: a trespasser is owed a lower duty of care, but nevertheless an occupier does owe a duty to act humanely. => This case has now been replaced by Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, but may still be relevant in cases that fall outside scope of Act (e.g. where visitor has suffered property damage -> s.1(8) of 1984 Act) |
six-year-old C was badly burned when he was trespassing on D’s land |
|
|
Ratcliffe v McConnell [1999] (CA) => 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act |
Volenti non fit injuria was considered in determining if a duty of care existed in case of a 19-year-old student who, having drunk about four pints of alcoholic drink, climbed over gate of a college open-air swimming pool at about 02.30. Although conscious of word ‘Warning’, C did not read notice by gate. He got undressed and took a running dive into pool either at point where shallow end started or at slope from deep to shallow end. He hit top of his head on bottom, suffering tetraplegic injuries. CA held that occupiers owed no duty under s.1 of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. Knowing that pool was closed for winter, that it was dangerous to dive into water of unknown depth and that water level of pool was low, C had willingly accepted risk as his within meaning of s.1(6). |
He got undressed and took a running dive into pool either at point where shallow end started or at slope from deep to shallow end. |
|
|
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] (CA) => 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act |
Mr Donoghue, C, spent day evening in a public house and then left to go for a midnight swim in sea with his friends. in his haste to get into water he dived from a slipway in Folkestone harbour owned by D and struck his head on an underwater obstruction, breaking his neck. At his trial evidence was adduced to affect that slipway had often been used by others during summer months to dive from. Security guards employed by D had stopped people from diving although there were no warning signs put out. The obstruction that had injured C was a permanent feature of a grid-pile which was submerged under water. In high tide this would not have posed a risk but when the tide went out it was a danger. C’s action was based on Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Mr Donoghue was 31, physically fit, a professional scuba diver who had trained in Royal Navy. It was part of his basic knowledge as a diver that he should check water levels and obstructions before diving. trial judge found for C but reduced damages by 75% to reflect extent to which he had failed to take care of his own safety under Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. D appealed contending that in assessing whether a duty of care arises under s.1(3) each of criteria must be assessed by reference to individual characteristics and attributes of particular C and on particular occasion when incident in fact occurred, i.e. when assessing whether D should be aware of whether a person may come into vicinity of danger, it should be assessed on likelihood of someone diving into water in middle of night in mid-winter rather than looking at incidences of diving during summer months. Held: Appeal allowed. test of whether a duty of care exists under s.1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to circumstances prevailing at time of alleged breach resulted in injury to C. At time Mr Donoghue sustained his injury, Folkestone Properties had no reason to believe that he or anyone else would be swimming from slipway. Consequently, criteria set out in s.1(3)(b) was not satisfied and no duty of care arose. => Tomlinson was going through HL at same time and cases had some influence on each other. (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) (HL) => 1984 Occupiers’ Liability Act) |
Folkestone harbour owned by D and struck his head on an underwater obstruction, breaking his neck |
