OLA 1957

Occupier

May be but does not have to be owner or tenant

Wheat v E. Lacon - Occupier is someone who has sufficient control over the premises

- Can be more than one occupier of a premises

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation - Occupier means legal control even if not physically in possession of the premises at the time

AMF International - Occupier is who has control of premises at the time of incident, Independent Contractor was held to the occupier

Wheat v E.lacon

Occupier is someone who has sufficient control over the premises

Can be more than one occupier of a premises

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

Occupier means legal control even if not physically in possession of the premises at the time of incident

• Council had issued a compulsory purchase order but had not yet taken physical possession

• Held to be occupiers as they were effectively in control of the premises

AMF International

Occupier is who has control of premises at the time of incident

Independent Contractor was held to the occupier

1(3)(a)

Premises = fixed or moveable structure including vessel, vehicle or aircraft

1(2)

Lawful adult visitors = LICS

1. Licensees - anyone with expressed or implied permission eg postmen, delivery men

2. Invitees - People invited onto the land eg friends

3. Contractual permission - eg event ticket to enter an event

4. Statutory right - eg police with a warrant, meter readers

2(2)

Common duty of care owed to Adult Visitors

Occupier must Take Reasonable steps to ensure premises is Reasonably safe for the visitor in all Reasonable circumstances that they are permitted to be there for

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway - Only required to make premises Reasonably safe, not Completely Safe

Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

2(2)

Only required to make premises Reasonably safe, not Completely Safe

Rochester Cathedral v Debell

1. Duty is to make premises reasonably safe, not perfectly safe

2. Tripping, slipping, and falling are everyday occurrences

3. To impose liability there must be something beyond the risk of injury from minor blemishes and defect

Cole v Davis-Gilbert

Duty of a specific risk cannot last indefinitely where there could be other potential causes of the damage such as an accident

2(3)(a)

Higher Duty of Care for Children

Must be prepared for Children to be less careful than adults

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor - Expected to guard against any Allurement eg poisonous berries

Phipps v Rochester - Parents are expected to supervise young children and this is taken into account

Jolley v London - Not required to foresee the exact harm from allurement

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

Occupier must guard against any Allurement eg poisonous berries

Phipps v Rochester

Parents are expected to supervise + protect young children from unsafe places

This is taken into account

2(3)(b)

Occupier owes Tradesmen a Duty of Care

Roles v Nathan - Occupiers can expect Tradesmen to guard against risks associated with their trade

Roles v Nathan

Occupiers can expect specialists to guard against risks associated with their trade

Only applies where tradesman is inured by something related to his job

• Chimney sweepers died from carbon monoxide poisoning, Occupier was not liable as they could have expected sweepers to be aware of the danger

2(4)(b)

Occupier has a defence for injury caused by ICs negligent work if:

1. It was Reasonable for occupier to give work to IC - Haseldine v Daw

2. IC was Competent to carry out task. Occupier should check references + insurance. No insurance is a sign of incompetence. - Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

3. Occupier checked work is done properly - more complicated the work, the more likely the an expert should be employed to check this - Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Occupier must check IC is competent

Haseldine v Daw

Occupier is not Liable where work is highly specialist + it is reasonable to employ an Independent Contractor

Because the work was technical, the occupier was not expected to inspect or understand it themselves.

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

To avoid liability Occupier must reasonable steps to check work was done properly

Defences to a claim by a lawful visitor

1. Contributory negligence - Partial defence

2. Consent (Volenti) - Complete Defence

3. Warning notice s2(4)(a) - Oral or written, Complete Defence

s2(4)(a)

2 cases

To avoid liability Warning Notice Must be

1. Sufficient warning

2. Enable visitor to be reasonably safe

Rae v Marrs - Deep pit inside Dark shed, Warning sign was insufficient as it could not be seen

Darby v National Trust - If danger is obvious, no need to warn

2(1)

Common Duty of Care is owed to Visitors

+

Exclusion clauses

Allows Occupier to limit/exclude liability for injury caused to a visitor

Cannot be used for Death/Injury resulting for Negligence

Whether this works on a child visitor depends on child’s age

Remedies

Damages are awarded for injury suffered/property damaged

OLA 1957 sections

1(2) - Lawful Visitors

1(3)(a) - Premises

2(1) - Duty of care is owed to Lawful Visitors + Exclusion clauses

2(2) - Explains the Duty of Care

2(3)(a) - Children - Higher Duty of Care

2(3)(b) - Tradesmen - Duty of Care owed

2(4)(a) - Warning notices

2(4)(b) - Independent Contractor removing liability from Occupier