OLA Trespasser

C and D

C - Trespasser
D - Occupier

C may have a claim against D for his injury under

OLA 1984

Occupier

An occupier is someone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises, there may be more than one and physical occupation is not required (Wheat v Lacon)

Trespasser

A trespasser does not have permission/authority to be on the premises or exceeds the permission (Tomlinson v Congleton)

LJ Scrutton

If a person exceed their permission they have become a trespasser

Premises

Premises are defined as any land, building or any fixed or moveable structure (Wheeler v Copas)

Was C injured due to the state of the premesis

S.1(1), It must be proved C (the trespasser) was injured by reason of the danger due to the state of the premises NOT by their own foolish behaviour, in Keown v Coventry a trespasser was injured due to his own foolish behaviour

What is the duty

S.1(4) the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned, to prove a duty was owed to C, S.1(3)(a), (b) and (c) must be satisfied

S1(3)(a)

The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists (Rhind v Astbury Water Park)

S1(3)(b)

The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other (the trespasser) is in the vicinity of the danger (Swain v Natui Ram Puri)

S.1(3)(c)

The risk/danger is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection (Swain v Natui Ram Puri)

Warnings

S.1(5) An occupier may have given warning of the danger on the premises or discourage potential by.. (Tomlinson v Congleton) Any warnings must be clear and visible in order to be effective

Breach of duty and risk factors

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks, the occupier (D) will be judged against the standard of a reasonable occupier of premises in the same situation (Platt v Liverpool CC)

Causation

Not required

Defences

Contributory Negligence (Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act) (In Tomlinson v Congleton damages were reduced),
Consent, C fully understood the nature of the risk and accepted it (S.1(6)) (Ratcliff v McConell)

Damages

C (trespasser) may claim for personal injury but not for damage to property