19395305
Descrição
FlashCards por Akemba Basalo, atualizado more than 1 year ago
Mais
|
Criado por um usuário excluído
aproximadamente 8 anos atrás
|
|
|
Copiado por Akemba Basalo
aproximadamente 5 anos atrás
|
|
| Questão | Responda |
| What is the main purpose of Occupiers Liability? | Occupier of a premises owe a duty to keep visitors safe whilst on their premises |
| How was this law originally developed? | Through Common Law |
| Which Act governs duty to lawful visitors? | Occupiers Liability Act 1957 |
| Which Act governs duty to trespassers? | Occupiers Liability Act 1984 |
| Where in the statute is "Occupier" defined? | It isn't in either act |
| So where do we find the definition for an occupier, as stated by section 1(2) OLA 1957? | Common law rules apply |
| What does common law say? | That there is a test for who can be considered an occupier - and this comes down to someone who has some form of control over the premises - so not necessarily the owner |
| What are the key facts of Wheat v E Lacon and Co? What was the principle? | Brewery house case where guest fell down the stairs and died. No liability was owed however as the light bulb that was removed that caused the accident was due to a stranger |
| There is also no definition of "premises" but what does section 1(3) of the OLA 1957 say? | Premises includes not only land and buildings but also fixed or movable structures such as vessels, vehicles and aircrafts |
| What defines a visitor? | Someone who has permission to enter the premises - whether permission is expressed or implied. |
| When does OLA 1984 apply? | When permission have not been given and the person is defined as a trespasser |
| What is Expressed Permission? | Express permission is when the person has actively gained permission to be in a place |
| What can be done with this permission? | The permission can be withdrawn and the person must be given time to leave |
| What is Implied permission? | There is no express permission but courts can decide there was implied permission to be there. Eg Emergency Services, metre readers, etc/ |
| What are the facts of Lowery v Walker? What was the principle? | Horse attacked a villager who took a shortcut frequently through the defendants land - courts granted implied permission as defendant had done little to deter the visitors and therefore there was no duty owed |
| What do Sections 2(1) and 2(2) of OLA 1957 state? | 2(1) - An occupier owes a duty to visitors 2(2) - Defines the duty of care |
| What is the duty of care defined as? | The duty to take care that in all circumstances the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purpose for which they were supposed to be there |
| How is this duty similar to negligence? | The occupier must only protect the visitor from foreseeable risks |
| Scrutton LJ, in the case of The Calgarth said what? | "When you invite a person into your house to use the stairs you do not invite them to slide down the banisters" |
| What does this mean? | If the visitor does something that they are not permitted to do, then no duty is owed |
| Duty varies when it comes to certain categories of people, where is this stated? | Section 2(3) of OLA 1957 |
| What does this state? | The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child |
| What are the key facts of Moloney v Lambeth LBC? What was the principle? | Four year old fell through a gap in stairs banister - an injury that couldn't happen for an adult - but it should've been foreseen that a child couldn't appreciate the risk so there was liability. |
| What is the doctrine of allurement? | An occupier should do nothing to attract children to the danger |
| What are the key facts of Glasgow Corporation v Taylor? What was the principle? | 7 year old ate poisonous berries and died, shrub was not fenced off. Court said they did not protect against allurement so occupier was liable |
| How can the occupier be relieved of duty to children? | If very young children are involved, they may be the responsibility of another parent or adult |
| What are the key facts of Phipps v Rochester Corporation? What was the principle? | 5 year old fell down a drench by defendant in an area where children frequently played. Court said defendant was not liable as the child of that age should be under proper control of the parents |
| OLA 1957 also covers those exercising a calling. What does Section 2(3)(b)? | An occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of their calling, will appreciate and guard against any risks ordinarily incidental to it |
| What does this mean? | Those carrying out a trade are expected to take measures to avoid the risks associated with it |
| What are the key facts of Roles v Nathan? What was the principle? | Chimney sweeps who died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes. Court said sweeps should have accepted advice of occupier to complete work with boilers off and not lit |
| Section 2(4) of OLA 1957 states? | The occupier is not liable for damage caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of work by an independent contractor employed by the occupier |
| To show the liability of the contractor and not the occupier what three things must be proven? | 1. Must have been reasonable for occupier to have entrusted the work to the Contractor - Haseldine v Daw & Son 2. The contractor hired must be competent - Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket 3. If possible the occupier must inspect the work - Woodward v Major of Hastings |
| What does section 2(4)(a) of OLA 1957 state? | Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger they had been warned about, the warning is not treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability unless it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonable safe |
| An Occupier does not have to warn against an obvious danger, which case does this link to? | Rae v Mars UK |
| Section 2(1) of OLA 1957 states that? | An occupier of premises owes the same duty to all visitors except in so far as they are free to restrict or exclude their duty to any visitor by agreement or otherwise |
| How can this be done? | An occupier putting up a sign saying they will not be liable for any injury sustained by the visitor |
| What is the defence subject to? | Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
| What does Volenti non fit Injuria mean? | Consent |
| Section 2(5) OLA 1957 allows for what? | The occupier has no liability to any visitor in respect of risk willingly accepted by the visitor |
| What defence can also apply? | Contributory Negligence |
Quer criar seus próprios Flashcards gratuitos com GoConqr? Saiba mais.