4286166
Description
Flashcards by pavlina.hunt, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by pavlina.hunt
almost 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| OLA 1957 scope | s 1(1) - 'to regulate the duty which an occupier owes to his visitors in respect to dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them' - the source of damages must originate with the premises |
| Occupier (owes a duty under the act) | s 1(2) - 'a person's occupation or control of premises' - the key is control. - Can be more than one occupier - Wheat v Lacon (owner and a manager of a pub); AMF International Ltd v MAgnet Bowling Ltd (owner and contractors of a large building site); - Does not have to have any interest in land - Harris v Birkenhead Corp (local authority and a vacant building due for demolition, never entered or taken possession of it) |
| Lawful Visitor | s 1(2) - visitors, who have express or implied permission to enter the premises without altering the rules of the common law - this includes those who enter in the exercise of a right (firemen), but not using a right of way. - Lowery v Walker - regularly taken short-cut lead to implied permission; - Edwards v Railway Excutive - repeated trespass of children onto the railway, against which D took action (fence) did not confer a licence. |
| Premises | s1(3) - 'any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft', including ladders, electricity pylons, grandstands, diving boards, lifts, airport runways and, in Furmedge v Chester-le-Street DC, an inflatable sculpture |
| Limitations | - An entrant can be a lawful visitor in one part and a trespasser in another. (The Calgarth); - Unauthorized subcontractors on a building site are visitors to their immediate employer but trespassers to the owner (Ferguson v Welsh); - Child trespassing due to allurement is treated as a lawful visitor (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor). |
| The Standard of Care | s 2(2) - to take reasonable care to keep a visitor reasonably safe for the purpose for which they were allowed entry. - objective test and common duty of care, covers negligent omissions in addition to acts and damage to property as well as personal injury and death. |
| Children | s 2(3)(a) - 'an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults' - Glasgow Corporation v Taylor - child (7yr) trespassed to part of the premises, berries treated as allurement, therefore liable; - Jolley v Sutton LBC - trespassers, but an abandoned boat an allurement, liable - When the children are very young the duty can be discharged to the parents: ... Bourne Leisure v Marsdon (2yr drowned in pond with small fence, obvious danger, should have protected); ... Phipps v Rochester Corporation (5yr fell into a trench on D's land). |
| Skilled visitors | s 2(3)(b) - 'a person , in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it. - Roles v Nathan - chimney sweeps against all warnings and even forceful removal of them form the premises continued work and died; - General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas - balanced dangerously on window ledges while cleaning windows. |
| Compensation Act 2006 | s 1 - Judges should take into account the potential impact on desirable activities - Scout Association v Barnes - Jackson LJ (obiter) always part of the balancing exercise, but allowing scouts to play a game in the dark significantly increases the risk of injuries without adding to the value of the game. |
| Contributory Negligence | s 2(3) - partial defence - the courts may take into account the degree of care which a reasonable visitor can be expected to show for their own safety. |
| Warnings | s 2(4)(a) - adequate warning can discharge the occupiers' duty of care - they have to be enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. - Roles v Nathan - dicta the bridges story and the danger sign; - Darby v National Trust - no need to warn for obvious danger (swimmer in a deep and murky pond); - Staples v West Dorset DC (slipping on wet algae on a sloping harbour wall was obvious and known). |
| Independent contractors | 2(4)(b) - if the owner has taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the contractor is competent and has done the work properly, then they can shift the duty of care owed to visitors onto them. - Haseldine v Daw - death due to a faulty repair of a lift, too technical for an occupier to have checked for the fault; - Woodward v Mayor of Hastings - a cleaner had to clean steps from snow and ice, a child slipped liable, because not a technical task and should have been checked. |
| Volenti non fit injuria | s 2(5) - No duty of care is imposed on an occupier for risks willingly accepted by the visitor. - Geary v Wetherspoons Plc - the claimant would not have fractured her spine had she not negligently attempted to slide down a banister. |
| Exclusion of the common duty of care | s 2(1) - an occupier can restrict, modify or exclude his liability 'in so far as he is free to do so' BUT s 2 UCTA 1977 - on premises used for business purposes an occupier cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence; property damage subject to the 'reasonableness test'; educational and recreational facilities are not classed as business. |
| Damages and limitation period | - Adults: 3 years from the event; - Children: 3 years after 18; - Damages: personal injury and property damages (common law duty) including 'the property of persons who are not themselves his visitors' (s 1(3)(b)). |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.