Trespasser OLA 1984

Intro

Applies to trespassers people who have no permission or visitors who have exceeded the permission granted to them

A trespasser who suffers injury due to the state of these premises may be liable to claim for personal injury but not damage to property. This reflects the view The trespasses are deserving of less protection than lawful visitors.

Section 1.3 OLA 1984 provides that an occupier only out of duty to a trespasser if three elements are satisfied

Section 1(3) OLA1984 element 1

He or she is aware of the danger or has a reasonable grounds to believe it exist

Rhino v Astbury - as the occupiers were unaware of a submerged fibreglass resting on the bottom of its lake on its premises no duty was owed to the trespasser who injured himself jumping into the lake

Section 1(3) OLA1984 element 2

he or she knows or has reasonable ground to believe that the trespasser is in the vincity of the danger or may come into the vincity of the danger

Higgs v foster the claim failed as the occupier had no reason to believe the trespasser the police officer who is carrying out surveillance would come within the vincity of danger

Section 1(3) OLA1984 element 3

The risk is one against which in all circumstances he or she may be reasonably expected to offer the other some protection. This is subjective and objective test

Tomlinson v congleton the claimant age 18 was injured of a diving into a lake. He had ignored the signs like dangerous water no swimming so no duty was owed as a risk did not arise from anything done to the premises.

standard of care

The duty of care owed by an occupier to trespasser is defined under section 1.4 OLA 1984 it states to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of danger concerned

The standard of care is objective in Tomlinson v congleton the courts emphasise the occupier doesn’t have to spend lots of money in making the premises safe from obvious dangers

Danger must arise due to the premises

The danger must arise due to the state of the premises and occupiers a no DT to God against obvious dangers

Ratcliff v McConnell. A 19 year-old dived into a swimming pool he broke into after hours. He misjudged his dive and was seriously injured. The court held that the occupier was not required to warn adult trespasses of the risk arising from obvious dangers

Approach does not significantly change when a child is involved

The approach does not significantly change when a minor is involved

Kneown v Coventry NHS trust - an 11 year-old boy climbed a fire escape to show off to his friends but was seriously injured. The court decided that no duty of care was owed as the accident happened through the boys dangerous behaviour rather than an actual risk.

Defences to a claim by a trespasser

-Warning notice it would have to make the danger clear as seen in Westwood the post office

-Contributory negligence damages reflects claimant’s responsibility for his or her injuries

-Consent volenti is a complete defence

Conclusion