Occupiers liability

Which statute applies to lawful visitors?

The OLA 1957

According to case law, the key concept for determining who an occupier is:

Control

In Wheat V Lacon 1966, why was the pub manager considered an occupier?

He had control of the premises and the right to rent out rooms.

Which case illustrates that it can be difficult to establish who is the occupier?

Bailey V Armes (1999)

“Premises” is defined in s.1(2) and includes:

Land, buildings, houses, vehicles, and fixed or moveable structures.

Under both the 1957 and 1984 Acts, a duty of care will only cover dangers due to:

The state of the premises

Why was there no liability under the occupiers’ liability Acts in Gerry V Weatherspoon (2011)?

The injuries were caused by the claimant’s decision to slide down a banister, not unsafe premises.

What types of damage can a lawful visitor claim for under OLA 1957?

Personal injury and property damage.

According to s.2(2) of OLA 1957, the common duty of care is to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to:

Keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are invited.

What did the court decide in Laverton V Kiapasha Takeaway (2002)?

The shop owners had taken reasonable care, and there’s no duty to keep visitors completely safe.

In Rochester Cathedral V Debell (2016), the court made clear that an occupier is under a duty to:

Make the premises reasonably safe for visitors.

Section 2(3)(a) OLA 1957 provides that an occupier must be prepared for children to be:

Less careful than adults.

In Jolley V Sutton LBC (2000), why did the council breach their duty of care?

They failed to remove an old boat that was attractive to children, leading to foreseeable injury.

According to Phipps V Rochester Corporation (1955), an occupier is entitled to assume that vey young children will be:

Accompanied by someone looking after them.

Section 2(3)(b) OLA 1957 states that an occupier may expect that a person in the exercise of his trade will:

Appreciate and guard against any special risks known through their work.

In Roles V Nathan (1963), why did the claim fail?

The chimney sweeps should’ve been familiar with and guarded against the special risk of inhaling fumes.

Which of the following is NOT a condition for an occupier to have a defence under s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957 when a visitor is injured by an independent contractor?

The contractor was the occupier’s employee.

In Haseldine V Daw (1941), why was the occupier not liable for the death caused by a negligently repaired lift?

The occupier had fulfilled their duty by appointing a competent firm for highly technical work.

According to s.2(4)(a) OLA 1957, a warning notice must be:

Sufficient to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.

What is the effect of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 on exclusion clauses for businesss?

Businesses can restrict liability for property damage but not personal injury or death.

If a claimant willingly accepted a risk of negligence on the part of the occupier, which complete defence can apply?

Consent (volenti)

Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, for what type of damage can a trespasser claim?

Only personal injury.

Which is one of the three conditions that must be met for an occupier to owe duty to a trespasser under s.1(3) OLA 1984?

The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

In Tomlinson V Congleton BC (2003), why was no duty owed under s.1(3)(c)?

It wouldn’t be reasonable to offer protection against a natural feature of the lake.

According to s.1(4) OLA 1984, the duty owed by occupiers to trespassers is to:

Take such care as is reasonable to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury by the danger.

In Ratcliff v McConnell (1999), why was the occupier not required to warn the adult trespasser of the risk of injury?

The danger was obvious (diving into a swimming pool without checking the depth)

Under the old law, what did the doctrine of “allurement” do for child trespassers?

It provided extra protection by treating them as visitors if attracted to a dangerous object.

In Young V Kent CC (2005), what was the reason a duty of care arose for the 12-year-old boy who fell through a skylight?

The area was a known meeting place for children, the danger was known, and replacement was low cost.

In Young V Kent (2005), why were the claimant’s damages reduced by 50%?

The claimant was still partly to blame for his injuries.

For unlawful visitors (trespassers), what is required for a warning to be an effective defence?

It is enough to take reasonable steps to warn of the danger.

Why might warning signs be ineffective for very young child trespassers, as highlighted in Bourne Leisure V Marsden (2009)?

Young children rarely understand written notices warning of danger.

Section 2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act allows an occupier a defence if a lawful visitor is injured due to a danger created by:

An independent contractor.

In Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket Club (2003), why was the cricket club held liable for the guest’s injury during a firework display?

They failed to take reasonable care to ensure the stunt team was competent and insured.

What is the main reform that has occurred in occupiers’ liability, primarily through judicial approach?

A shift towards greater personal responsibility for claimants.

What is a key criticism of the occupiers’ liability act 1984 concerning child trespassers?

It’s imposes a stricter duty of care than the 1957 Act.

According to Keown V Coventry (2004), what must judges consider when applying the duty under s.1(4) OLA1984 to child trespassers?

That a place considered reasonably safe for adult adults might be dangerous for a child.

What is one proposed idea for reform in occupiers’ liability that would involve compulsory insurance for every occupier?

Introducing a state-run compensation scheme funded by general tax.

The trend of judges making it difficult for trespasser claims to succeed by introducing concepts like “obvious dangers” reflects which general direction of reform in occupiers’ liability?

Imposing greater personal responsibility on claimants.