Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Tort Law - OL
Occupiers Liability
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Wheat v Lacon | Multiple people can be an occupier |
| Harris v Birkenhead Corporation | An occupier is someone who 'controls the premises' |
| What are premises? What act tells us this? | s1(3)OLA 1957: Land, buildings, any fixed or moveable structure |
| Wheeler v Copas | Premises includes ladders |
| Who is a visitor? | Someone who has been granted (express/implied) permission by the occupier to access the premises |
| Who is a trespasser? What act governs their rights? | Someone who enters the property without permission. OLA 1984 |
| Lowery v Walker | courts can imply permission (used shortcuts before) |
| What standard of care is owed to visitors? what Act? | OLA 1957 s2(1): occupiers owe a common duty of care to visitors |
| What is the Common duty of care? | visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he/she is invited to be there |
| Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme | Occupiers took reasonable steps to keep the visitors reasonably safe |
| What section of the OLA 1957 refers to occupiers standard of care upon children? | s2(3)(a) |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor | allurement of fruit bush meant they weren't trespassing |
| Phipps v Rochester Corporation | wasn't expected children would be left alone (no parents) on building site, so not liable |
| What law governs persons exercising a calling? and what does it say? | OLA 1957 s2(3)(b): they will appreciate and guard against any special risks relevant to their work |
| Roles v Nathan | Chimney Sweeps should have taken reasonable precautions themselves |
| What law governs independent contractors? and what does it say? | OLA 1957 s2(4): Occ liable if work<common duty unless reasonably saw competence, and checked work (if nature allows) |
| Haseldine v Daw | Nature of work (lift) didn't allow occupier to check the work had been properly done |
| Woodward v Mayor of Hastings | cleaners so nature of work allowed the occupier t ocheck the work was properly done |
| Bottomley v Todmorden CC | Occupier (cricket club) didn't take reasonable steps to check if the contracter (stunt team) was competent |
| Gwilliam | nature of work (splat wall) didn't allow the occupier to check if work was properly done |
| What duty is owed to trespassers? Explain | The common duty of humanity: reasonable care taken to ensure non-visitor is not injured from specific dangers on premises |
| What are specific dangers? | (1) Occ aware/reasle beleif of danger (2) occ knows/reasle beleif a person in vicinity (3) occ reasly expected to protect |
| Rhind v Astbury Water Park | Submerged danger |
| Donoghue v Folkestone | winter harbour dive - occupier not reasonably expected to protect - unforseeable |
| Higgs v Foster | Cop in pit - occupier unaware of their presence so didn't know/have reasonable grounds to believe a person in vicinity |
| Scott v Associated British Ports | Train Surfers - foreseeable because it had happened previously |
| Mann v Northern Electric | Football in Electricity substation - occupier had taken reasonable steps (19 foot fence) |
| Ratcliffe v McConnell | Trespasser in Pool - The warning signs and since not reasonable to keep lights on meant they took reasonable steps |
| Tomlinson v Congleton BC | Trespasser in lake - unreasonable to fence off all water + warning signs |
| Keown v Coventry Healthcare | 11-year old climbs on fire escape - premises was deemed not dangerous, merely the improper way it was being used |
| What defences are applicable to Occupiers Liability? + statute | Contributory negligence (s2 OLA 1957), Volenti (s2 OLA 1957), Exclusion clauses (UCTA 1977 s2, CRA 2015 s62) |
| Revel v Newbery | Contributory Negligence: Old man in a shed shoots trespasser. Damages reduced because V shouldn't have been trespassing |
| Titchener v BRB | Volenti on railway - should have known the risks by walking along the train tracks |
| What is Contributory negligence? | Visitors must take reasonable care for their own safety |
| What is volenti | when the Occupier proves that the visitor has willingly accepted the risk |
Created by:
Oscar.G
Popular Law sets