Flashcards
W300
Cards in this deck (18)
- 1OLA 1957 - Def occupierSufficient degree of control - Wheat v Lacon 1966 (Denning)
- 2OLA 1957 - No obligation to warn of obvious dangerDarby v National Trust 2001 (swimming in only pond without warning)
- 3OLA 1957 - What is the duty?s.2 OLA 1957 Duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe
- 4OLA 1957 s3?Must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. A person in the exercise of is calling will guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it.
- 5OLA 1957 - No liability for risks willingly accepted (section? specifics?)OLA 1957 s.5 Same as consent - must have known and accepted the precise risk.
- 6Obvious trench 'concealed from understanding' of child. Case? Age?Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955. 5yo
- 7OLA - Allurement more likely to imply licensee (visitor)Taylor v Glasgow City Council 1922, but reluctant since OLA 1984 (Tomlinson v Congleton 2003 - dive in quarry lake)
- 8OLA 1984 - Duty owed? Section?s.3 - a) Aware of danger, or reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
b) Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that D is or may come into the vicinity
c) Risk is one which he may reasonably, in the circumstances, be expected to offer protection
s.4 - Duty is to take such care as is reasonable to see that he does not suffer injury - 9OLA 1984. Warnings good enough?OLA 1984 s5 - In appropriate case, reasonable warning of danger or discouragement of risk
- 10OLA 1984 - Danger due to state of premises or dangerous activity?Keown v Coventry healthcare NHS Trust 2003 (Fire escape, 11yo). Not liable, danger due to activity.
- 11Property damage subject to OLA?Yes - 1957. No - 1984 s1(8)
- 12OLA structureOccupier? Premises? Visitor/trespasser? DoC? BoD? Causation in fact (but for)? Remoteness in Law (foreeseeability)? Exclusions? Defences? Conclusion.
- 13Contrib negligence. Act? Case law for children?Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. 11yo 75% negligent in Morales v Eccleston 1991 (pavement football, busy road). 13yo not negligent when hit by car overtaking a lorry which had stopped for her - Gough v Thorne 1966
- 14OLA, going beyond permissionBannisters - The Calgarth 1927
- 15Remoteness testsType of damage foreseeable - The Wagon Mound (part one) 1961
Eggshell skull - Smith v Leech Brain 1962
Similar in type proviso (type not manner, manhole burn) - Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
Not foreseeable (bike miscarriage) - Bourhill v Young 1943 - 16Causation - Multiple causesMore than negligible contribution to harm - Bailey v MoD 2008
Material contribution to risk of harm - McGhee v NCB 1973
Divisible liability (years worked, asbestosis) - Holtby v Brigham and Cowen 2000 - 17DoC in negligenceEstablished duty, or three part test in Caparo v Dickman 1990
a) Harm reasonably foreseeable from conduct
b) Proximity (neighbourhood) between C and D
c) Fair and just to impose a duty - 18Novus Actus InterveniensNone
Information
- Description
- Bachelors Degree Law W300 Flashcards on W300, created by Rob Hogan on 31/05/2016.
- Created by
- Rob Hogan
- Views
- 0
- Rating