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;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the acts for OL and what do they govern? |
The Occupier's Liability Act 1957 governs an occupier's liability towards lawful visitors The Occupier's Liability Act 1984 governs an occupier's liability towards unlawful visitors |
|
|
What is OL? |
Liability owed by occupiers because of harm arising from the state of the premises |
|
|
Definition of an occupier |
There isn't a statutory definition of an occupier |
|
|
What is the test used to decide if the D is an occupier? + case |
The Occupational Control Test is used and it is a question of fact and degree of control over the premises (Wheat v Lacon) |
|
|
What was outlined in Wheat v Lacon? |
Occupier doesn't have to be the land owner. There can be more than one occupier. |
|
|
What was outlined in Harris v Birkenhead |
The occupier doesn't have to be in physical occupation |
|
|
What is a premises? + act and section |
OLA 1957 S1(3)(a) premises includes "any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft" |
|
|
What was outlined in Wheeler v Copas |
The definition is very broad |
|
|
What is a lawful visitor? |
Someone with express or implied permission to enter the premises |
|
|
What can a lawful visitor claim for? |
Personal injury, death or property damage under S1(3) |
|
|
What are the types of lawful visitor? |
Invitee, licensee, those with a contractural permission and those with a statutory right of entry |
|
|
What was outlined in OLA 1957 S2(1) |
An occupier owes a lawful visitor a common DOC |
|
|
What was outlined in OLA 1957 S2(2) |
A common duty of care means to "take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe using the premises for the purpose for which they were invited" |
|
|
What was outlined in Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway |
An occupier doesn't have to make the premises completely safe. They must only do what's reasonable |
|
|
What was held in Rochester Cathedral v Debell? |
1) The risk of injury must come from more than a minor defect 2) the state of the premises must pose a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise obliged the occupier to take the remedial action |
|
|
What is the principle for pure accidents + case? |
A duty arising from a specific risk doesn't last indefinitely where there could be other causes of the damage to the premises (Cole v Royal British Legion) |
|
|
What does OLA 1957 s 2 (3) (a) state? |
The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and the premises must be reasonably safe for a child that age |
|
|
What was outlined in Glasgow Corporation v Taylor |
Occupier should protect against any allurement or attraction placing a child visitor at risk of harm |
|
|
What is the principle for very young children? + Case |
Courts are reluctant to hold occupier's liable for the injuries of very young children because they should be under adult supervision (Phipps v Rochester Corp.) |
|
|
What was outlined in Jolley v Sutton? |
An occupier is liable for foreseeable harm even if precise harm or circumstances in which the harm occurs is not foreseeable |
|
|
What is owed to tradesmen? |
A common duty of care |
|
|
What was outlined in S2(3)(b) |
Occupier may expect that a person in exercise of their calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it (Nathan) |
|
|
What was outlined in 2(4)(b) |
Occupier isn't liable for harm or damage if caused by faulty construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor |
|
|
What must be proven first for 2(4)(b) |
In the circumstances the D acted reasonably entrusting the work to a contractor |
|
|
What was outlined in Haseldine v Daw & Son |
More complicated and specialist the work the more likely it should be given to a specialist |
|
|
What is the second thing that must be proven for 2(4)(b) |
D has taken steps as the reasonably ought to in order to satisfy themselves that the contractor is competent and the work was done properly |
|
|
What was outlined in Bottomley v Todmorden |
D should check references and if contractor has insurance |
|
|
What was outlined in Woodward v Mayor of Hastings |
More complicated the work the more likely an Occupier isn't expert enough and will require them to employ an expert to have the work checked |
