occupiers liability 1984

Define occupier-

“a person who has some degree or control over the premises in question”- common law, not Act

Wheat V Lacon

sufficient control test, who is classified as occupier?

• Lord Denning- wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person

premises definition

s1(3)(a)-“fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft” and gardens

section 1 (1)(a)

• occupier can be liable for

• a person other than visitors

• for injuries caused by a danger due to:

  • state of the premises

  • or things done/omitted to be done on them

Donoghue v Folkstone properties

not liable as they would not expect a trespasser to be about at that time of year

Tomlinson

• occupier:

  • not liable if injuries caused by Cs foolish activities

  • doesn’t need to spend lots of money making premises safe from obvious dangers

  • greater the degree of risk the more precaution should be taken

s.1(3)

• subjective test- does occupier owe DOC- all 3 stages satisfied

1. aware of danger, reasonable grounds to believe it exists- Rhind V Astbury Waterpark

2. reasonable grounds- vicinity of the danger

3. risk reasonably expected to offer some protection

s1 (4)

• objective test

• breach of DOC- “DOC take care as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent injury”

Defences specific for OLA84-

• Warning

  • Westwood V Post Office

  • MUST BE EFFECTIVE AND SUFFICIENT