1/21
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
s1(8)
Occupiers have No Duty for the Property of Trespassers
British Rail Board v Herrington
Introduced the Common humanity owed towards trespassers + Lead to the introduction of the OLA 1984
A six year old boy was badly burned when he trespassed onto an electrified railway line through vandalised fencing. The British Rail was aware of gaps in the fencing and that children played in the area. The HOL established a duty of common humanity owed when an occupier knew of danger and of the likelihood of the trespass
Who is a Duty owed to
What section states this
1(1)(a)
1) Trespassers
2) Those who exceed their permission
Can only claim for Personal Injury not Property damage
Revill v Newbery
Duty is owed to Trespassers Breaking in with Criminal Intent
Requirements to owe a Duty of Care to a Trespasser
s1(3)(b)
a) He is Aware /has Reasonable Grounds to believe the Danger exists - Rhind v Astbury
b) He knows/has Reasonable Grounds to believe the other is in or may come into the Vicinity of the Danger - Higgs v Foster
c) The risk is one which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the other some protection from - Tomlinson v Congleton
Donoghue v Folkestone - Time of day/year can also be considered
Greater the Risk = Greater the Precautions necessary
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
Time of Day + Year the accident happened is relevant when considering liability
1(3)(b)
2nd requirement for a duty to be owed
Occupier must know or have reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in or may come in the vicinity
Higgs v Foster - No duty because D Did not know or have reasonable grounds to believe trespasser would be there
What actually is the duty owed under 1(4)
To "Take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that a trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger"
Ratcliff v McConnell
Occupier is not Required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury arising from Obvious Dangers
What did Tomlinson v Congleton Establish
Relates to 1(3)c
The risk must be one D is reasonably expected to offer some protection + not risk from claimants own actions
And
Occupier is not expected to spend lots of money to make premises safe from Obvious Dangers
Reinforces Ratcliffe v McConnell
Higgs v Foster
1(3)(b)
Occupier will not be liable if he had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser
Rhind v Astubury
1(3)(a)
Occupier must be aware of the danger to be liable
O did not know of the submerged container resting at the bottom of the lake. Rhind ignored the warning signs and jumped in the lake and was injured by objects submerged below the surface. The occupier did not know of the danger no duty was owed
Keown v Coventry NHS
If the child appreciates the danger Occupier cannot be liable
An 11 year old boy climbed a fire escape to show off to his friends and fell.. The COA held that, since the child appreciated the danger, it was not the state of the premises at fault but the child. There was no danger due to the state of the premises and the hospital was not liable.
Baldaccino v West Wittering
There is no duty to warn children against obvious danger
Two cases showing the approach to children is the same as for adults
Keown v Coventry NHS - D is not liabe If child Appreciates the Danger + State of the Premises does not cause the injury
Baldaccino v West Wittering - There is no duty to warn child against obvious danger, the state of the premises did not cause his injury
Two cases show if the injury does not arise from the state of the premises, the occupier cannot be liable
Keown v Coventry NHS
Baldaccino v West Wittering
What are the defences to claims by a trespasser
Contributory negligence
Consent (Volenti) s1(6)
Warning notice - s1(5) Westwood v Post office
Whether a warning is sufficient for a child trespasser is up to the age and understanding of the child
Children
Section + Cases
Same laws from s2(3)(a) OLA 1957 apply - Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor - Occupier is expected to guard against allurement
Jolley v Sutton - Not required to foresee exactly how harm may occur from Allurement
Phipps v Rochester - Parents are expected to supervise young children
Keown v Coventry
Baldaccino v West Wittering
Occupier
Same Definition as 1957 act
Wheat v E. Lacon - Occupier is someone who has sufficient control over the premises
- Can be more than one occupier
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation - Occupier means Legal Control even if not in Physical Possession of the premises at the time of incident
AMF International - Occupier is who has control of premises at the time of incident
s1(5)
Warning of the risk can remove liability
1(3)(c)
Case
3rd requirement for an occupier to be liable
The risk must be one D is reasonably expected to offer some protection + not risk from claimants own actions
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council - Risk was obvious, not expected to offer protection
1(3)(a)
Occupier must be aware of or have reasonable grounds to believe the danger exists
Rhind v Astbury Water Park