Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Difference between Occupiers' Liability and RYLANDS V FLETCHER. |
R+F- only focused on C's own land. Occupier's- C's actions on D's land. |
|
Difference between the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 + 1984. |
1957- covers liability for lawful visitors. 1984- covers liability for trespassers. |
|
Principle of WHEAT and LACON |
There may be two or more occupiers. |
|
Not required for D to be an occupier according to WHEAT AND LACON. |
Did not matter if they were in physical occupation. |
|
Premises. |
Includes land and permanent buildings, but also covers fixed and movable structures. |
|
S.2(1) OLA 1957 gives a common duty of care to protection to |
Lawful visitors. |
|
Categories of lawful visitors. |
1. Invitees. 2. Licensees. 3. Those with contractual permission. 4. Those given statutory rights of entry. |
|
Principle from LOWRY V WALKER. |
A license can be obtained through repeated trespass and D's failure to prevent people coming onto the land. |
|
Any actionable harm under OLA law must be a result of... |
D's break of the common duty of care. |
|
Definition of the common duty of care under s.2(2) OLA 1957 and applied in LAVERTON |
Has to take care in all reasonable circumstances to keep C reasonably safe on the premises in relation to damage caused by the state of the premises. |
|
S.2(3)(a) of the OL A 1957: Principle re lawful child visitors. |
The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. |
|
Principle from PHIPPs V ROCHESTER CORP. |
The council was not liable as an occupier is entitled to expect that parents should safeguard their own children. |
|
Principle from GLASGOW CORPORATION V TAYLOR. |
-D was liable. -This is because they had failed to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe for a child of V's age. |
|
Principle from JOLLEY V LBC SUTTON. |
It was foreseeable that, when the children would meddle with the boat, they would be at risk of some kind of physical injury. |
|
Principle of 2(3)(b) OLA 1957 and application in ROLES V NATHAN. |
The court held that the occupier was not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to guard against a danger associated with their trade. |
|
Application of s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 in SALMON V SEAFARERS. |
-D was liable. -Because C's injuries were reasonably foreseeable, even though C had taken normal safeguards as a fireman to protect himself. |
|
Under s.4(b) you cannot recover from an occupier for harm caused by an independent contractor if: |
It was reasonable for the occupier to have given the work. |
|
Application of s.2(4)(b) in HASELDINE V DAW AND SON. |
It was reasonable to give the specialised work to a specialised engineering company. |
|
Application of principle at s(4)(b) in WOODWARD. |
The occupier was liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly, and the danger should have bee obvious to them. |
|
How effective must a warning be to be a defence under the OLA 1957? |
A warning is ineffective unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises. |
|
Principles regarding warnings from RAE V MARS. |
The court held that the unusual nature of the hazard meant that a specific warning of the immediacy of the danger should have been given by the occupiers. |
|
Occupiers may limit liability to lawful visitors by either of these two methods. |
-Contributory negligence. -Exemption clauses. |
|
Liability cannot be excluded for... |
-Children. -When the visitor is a consumer. -Business-to-business contracts. |
|
OLA 1984 does not allow trespassers to recover damages for ... |
-Anything other than death or personal injury. |
|
First element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984. |
1. He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists. |
|
Second element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984. |
2. He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger. |
|
Third element of liability under s.1(3)(a)(b) and (c) OLA 1984. |
3. The risk of harm to a trespasser resulting from that danger is one in which, in all the circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection. |
|
No OLA 84 liability in RHIND V ASTBURY WATER PARK because... |
- The court held that no duty of care was owed due to s.1(3)(a.) -The occupier did not know of the danger nor did they have reasonable grounds to believe that it existed. |
|
No OLA 84 liability in HIGGS V. FOSTER because... |
-Did not owe a duty of care due to s.1(3)(b). -The police officer was a trespasser as he did not have a statutory right to enter. D did not have reasonable grounds to believe they would enter. |
|
No OLA 84 liability in DONOGHUE V FOLKSTONE PROPERTIES because... |
-No duty of care owed. -D did not know, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that C would be swimming from the slipway. |
|
Level of the duty owed to trespassers under OLA 1984. |
Limited duty of care. |
|
Principle from TOMLINSON V CONGLETON BC |
?? |
|
3 ways to avoid complete or partial liability to trespassers. |
-Contributory negligence. -Complete defence of consent. -Warnings. |
|
Difference in the requirements for warning between 1957 and 1984 Acts. |
1957- enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises. 1984- does not have to enable the trespasser to be reasonably safe. |
|
S.2(3)(a) of the OLA 1957 and application in ROLES V NATHAN. |
- The occupier was not liable. -The danger was associated with the claimants' trade. |
|
Application of s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 in SALMON AND SEAFARERS. |
If C's injuries are reasonably foreseeable, even if they themselves have taken safeguards against it, D is still liable |
|
Under s.2(4)(b) you cannot recover from an occupier from harm caused by an independent contractor if: |
D breached the common duty of care |
|
Application of s.2(4)(b) in HASELDINE V DAW AND SON. |
If the work is highly specialist and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialised worker, then D is not liable. |
|
Application of principle s.2(4)(b) in WOODWARD. |
If the occupier has not taken reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly, the danger should have been obvious to them. |
|
How effective must a warning be to be a defence under OLA 1957? |
A warning is ineffective unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe on the premises. |
|
Principle regarding warnings from RAE V MARS. |
If the hazard is of an unusual nature, there must be a specific warning of the immediacy of the danger given by the Occupier's. |
|
Occupiers may limit liability to lawful visitors by either of these two methods. |
-Contributory negligence. -Exemption clauses. |
|
Liability cannot be excluded for... |
A visitor (but only applies for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.) |