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
Occupiers Liability
TORTS - Occupiers Liability Case Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) | WHO IS OCCUPIER? He who has SUFFICIENT CONTROL over premises to make it safe. Can be shared with others. C seriously injured, on unlit stairs in pub. Brewery plus pub managers were occupiers. |
| Kiapasha (t/a Takeaway Supreme) v Laverten (2002) | Discharging duty - Taking reasonable precautions to avoid accident taking place on property. C slipped on D wet floor. Precautions were taken - anti slip tiles; door matt; regular mopping D- standard of care dependends on particular place and people |
| Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2002) | Children are owed higher standard of care rotten boat abandoned for 2 years on D's property. C crushed & paralysed following attempts to repair by jacking up D- Liable - boat likely to be allurement to youths. reasonable steps should have been taken |
| Maloney v Lambeth Council (1968) | WHO IS OCCUPIER? Communal areas in block of flats - LANDLORD is occupier, has duty of care. Child got hurt on stairway. |
| Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976) | WHO IS OCCUPIER? Doesn't even have to have been at the property - just have to have CONTROL of premises. Council left flats empty without securing access. 4y old girl injured after roaming in through broken door and falling from window. |
| AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd (1968) | WHO IS OCCUPIER? Independent contractor is occupier. Bowling alley, builders were in control of premises, had duty of care. |
| Pearson v Coleman Brothers (1948) | VISITOR restricted by AREA: Must be made clear. Circus tent full of danger animals not clearly marked as 'off limits' to a child. |
| Collier v Anglian Water Authority (1983) | WHO IS OCCUPIER? He who has sufficient control. Only duty of care for that bit, which they have control over. Sea wall had uneven slabs. Although both were 'occupiers' only 1 was liable... the one who took care of the slabs. (not the cleaning). |
| Stone v Taffe (1979) | VISITOR RESTRICTED BY TIME: Must be communicated to visitor when time is up. "Lock-in" at pub. Drunk customer fell to death on unlit stairs. He didn't know 'time was up'. Occupiers still had duty even though technically out of hours. |
| R v Smith & Jones | VISITOR RESTRICTED BY PURPOSE: No occupier's liability if visitor does something outside of purpose. Son entered father's house for purpose of stealing. Found not a visitor. |
| Name 3 restrictions on express permission for visitors | 1. By area (Pearson v Coleman Bros) 2. By time (Stone v Taffe) 3. By purpose (R v Smith & Jones) |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922) | CHILD VISITOR, higher duty of care, allurement, reasonable to foresee children will be tempted. Poisonous berries were accessible from a public park where children played. Occupier breached duty of care |
| Simkiss v Rhondda B C (1983) | CHILD VISITOR, higher duty of care, but not more than parents. Children rolled off steep bank with parents permission. Occupier did NOT breach duty. |
| Roles v Natham (1963) | WARNINGS: will only absolve occupier if it reasonably ensures that visitor is safe. (Bridge example) |
| Perry v Butlins Holiday World [1998] | CHILD VISITORS, occupier owes duty of care because reasonably forseeable that children will not be closely supervised by parents. |
| Roles v Nathan (1963) | VISITORS - EXPERTS, Occupier can assume they KNOW ABOUT HARMS IN THEIR PROFESSION. Chimney sweeps died, should have known about CO poisoning. Occupier not liable. |
| Independent Contractors: 3 Things an Occupier can do to escape liability | 1. Acted reasonably in all circumstances 2. Checked contractor was competent 3. Check work was done properly |
| Staples v West Dorset [1995] | WARNINGS: Occupier doesn't need to warn if danger is obvious. |
| What is meant by ‘occupiers’ liability’ | Occupiers’ liability concerns the duty owed by those who occupy land (and premises upon it) towards the safety of those who enter onto the land. |
| Name the two statutes that deal with occupiers’ liability. | Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. |
| How is the term ‘occupier’ defined | Neither statute defines the term ‘occupier’. Instead, s.1(2) states that the common-law rules apply. Under common law, the test as to who can be considered an occupier is one of control, i.e. someone who has some degree of control over the premises. This |
| What is meant by ‘premises’ | There is no definition of ‘premises’, but s.1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 states that the term includes not only land and buildings but also fixed or moveable structures such as vessels, vehicles and aircraft. |
| Define the two different types of permission that a visitor may have. | Express permission: a person has express permission if he or she has actively gained permission to be in a place, for example he or she has been asked to enter the premises. Implied permission: sometimes, a person may not have express permission to be in |
| Lowery v Walker (1911) | IMPLIED PERMISSION - Milk customers on farm. Occupier put cross horse on path. They were not trespassers. |
Created by:
xtgirl