Occupiers' Liability

x_anniejoyce_x
Mind Map by , created over 5 years ago

Occupiers Liability Mind Map on Occupiers' Liability, created by x_anniejoyce_x on 05/07/2014.

53
0
0
Tags No tags specified
x_anniejoyce_x
Created by x_anniejoyce_x over 5 years ago
Bayonet Charge flashcards
katiehumphrey
GCSE Maths Notes: Averages
Andrea Leyden
English Language Terms
ekimlauretta
Les Aliments
dAnn dAnn
ASSD & PSBD QUESTION 2018 200
Dhiraj Tamang
Occupiers' Liability Key Cases by Name
pavlina.hunt
OLA 1957
pavlina.hunt
Synoptic Study - Occupiers Liability
Olivia Liston-Byers
Synoptic Study - Occupiers Liability
Akemba Basalo
Occupiers' Liability Key Cases by Name
David Bryant
Occupiers' Liability
1 Definition of an occupier!
1.1 WHEAT V E. LACON
1.1.1 Per Lord Denning states, that an occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises.
1.1.1.1 OLA 1957 S1(3)(a) definition of 'premises'
2 Who is a lawful visitor!?
2.1 someone who has permission to be there
2.2 OLA 1957 - S1(2) Invitees and licenses - S5(1) Persons ith a contractual right - S2(6) Persons entering with a legal right
2.3 Person with implied permission - approaching occupiers premises until you are not welcome, you then become a trespasser. LOWERY V WALKER
3 When someone is regarded as a trespasser!
3.1 Definition of trespasser!
3.1.1 Presence is unknown or presence is objected to
3.2 Only duty to trespassers was not to deliberately or intentionally injure a trespasser. ADDIE & SONS V DUMBECK
3.3 If it is a child trespassing, consider whether it was an allurement. (ENTICEMENT)
3.3.1 GLASGOW CORPORATION V TAYLOR
3.3.2 OLA 1957 S2(3)(a)
3.3.2.1 The child would have to show that the occupier was aware of the danger. Does the occupier know that trespassers will come into the vicinity? is it reasonable for the occupier to provide protection?
3.3.3 BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V HERRINGTON
3.3.4 Have to consider defences!
3.3.4.1 Parental supervision
3.3.4.1.1 PHIPPS V ROCHESTER - children should have been supervised
3.3.4.1.2 SIMKISS V RHONDDA - slid over a cliff parents expected to protect her
3.3.4.1.3 JOLLEY V SUTTON - boat was an allurement. council were liable
3.3.4.1.4 BOURNE LEISURE V MARSDEN - an occupier is not under duty to bring an obvious risk to parents of small children
4 When someone is a visitor!
4.1 Duties to visitors - S2(2) OLA 1957 occupier can place limitations on permission to enter
4.1.1 THE CALGARTH CASE - Per Scrutton LJ states 'when you invite person into your house to use the stairs, you do not expect him to slide down the banisters'
4.1.2 Visitor must be reasonably safe not premises.
4.1.2.1 Per Lord Denning - duty is the same as in negligence, look for the word reasonable
4.2 S2(3)(b) ROLES V NATHAN - 2 chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Boiler was still alight, could have been expected to deal with this risk. Per Lord Denning stated that the occupier can expect them to protect themselves and take precautions.
4.3 Independent Contractors
4.3.1 1- did the occupier take care in the selection of the independent contractor? 2- did the occupier examine the work done? 3- is it reasonable to expect him to check?
4.3.1.1 S2(4)(b)
4.3.1.2 HASELDINE V DAW - lifts were being maintained, one was left in a unsafe state. Technical task. The defendant not expected to check the work done.
4.3.1.3 WOODWARD V MAYOR OF HASTINGS - child slipped on icy step. no technical knowledge required.
5 DEFENCES!
5.1 Occupier can place warnings - OLA 1984 S1(5)
5.2 S2(5) OLA 1957 Volenti non fit injuria GEARY V JD WEATHERSPOONS, GRIMES V HAWKINS
5.3 Contibutory negligence - OLA 1957 S2(3)

Media attachments