Occupiers liability 1984 case law

Wood v Leadbitter

The claimant was removed from a racecourse by the occupier without his payment being returned to him. It was decided his license could be revoked without refund by the occupier at any time. You can change from lawful visitor to trespasser if your invite is revoked.  

Establishing duty

To establish if the occupier owes a duty they must be: 

1. Aware of a danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists 

2. They must know or have reason to believe that the person is in the vicinity of the danger or that they might come into the vicinity of the danger. Swain v Natui Ram Puri. 

3. They may be expected to protect the other person against the risk. I.e the risk wasn’t obvious. Tomlinson v Congleton borough 

 White v St Albans city

The court of appeal decided that where an occupier had taken steps to keep people out, they cannot be expected to reasonably believe people would be in the vicinity of the danger 

Higgs v Foster

Police came onto premises as part of an investigation but fell into an open inspection pit. The occupier wasn’t liable as they had no reason to believe they would be in the vicinity of danger. 

Level of duty 

Under the 1984 legislation there is no distinction between children and adults. They are judged under the same test Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS – An 11-year-old fell of when playing on a fire escape. Judged at the standard of adults he had caused his own death and the trust wasn’t liable. 

Ratcliffe v McConnel

The claimant broke into his school pool, dived in the shallow end, and broke his spine. He claimed against the school, but he was old enough to recognise the danger, but he failed to do so.

Rhind v Astbury waterpark

The claimant ignored a sign and dived into a pool he was not allowed to go in. When he landed, he hit a plastic box causing head injuries. The occupiers didn’t know about this danger and had no duty to make the pool safe as the sign should’ve stopped people entering it. 

Defences 

Volanti – If people used their free will to injure themselves and it was not the fault of the premises then there is a defence. 

 

Warnings – If a warning is enough to make the person reasonably aware of the danger it can be a defence 

Addie v Dumbreck 1929

Original HoL ruling that the miners owed no duty of care to fence off the area to keep children out even though they knew it was extremely dangerous and that children played there often.

BRB v Herrington

A six year old came through a commonly used shortcut to get to the playground across a train track and was seriously injured. The HoL used the Practice Statement 1966 for the first time to overrule Addie v Dumbreck’s ruling and introduced a common duty of care that people should try to keep others safe.

The Calgarth case

A ship entered a dock by a narrow entrance causing damage. While the ship did have permission to enter it was for a certain purpose and it had violated those terms here meaning it changed from a visitor to a trespasser.

Donoghue v Folkstone properties

C slipped and was injured on a boat while diving from a harbour in the middle of the night in the middle of winter. Such an obscure time to do this made it unforeseeable for the dock owner so they could no expect people to be in the vicinity and were not liable.

Young v Kent County Council

C fell through a skylight while playing on the school roof. The school knew the children did this but did not take steps to stop them. It was held that the school was aware people were in the vicinity so were liable.