1.1.1 Per Lord Denning states, that an
occupier is a person who has a
sufficient degree of control over
220.127.116.11 OLA 1957
2 Who is a lawful visitor!?
2.1 someone who has
permission to be there
2.2 OLA 1957
- S1(2) Invitees
- S5(1) Persons ith
a contractual right
- S2(6) Persons
entering with a
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)
3.3.2 OLA 1957 S2(3)(a)
18.104.22.168 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!
22.214.171.124 Parental supervision
126.96.36.199.1 PHIPPS V ROCHESTER
- children should have
188.8.131.52.2 SIMKISS V RHONDDA
- slid over a cliff parents
expected to protect her
184.108.40.206.3 JOLLEY V SUTTON
- boat was an
220.127.116.11.4 BOURNE LEISURE V MARSDEN
- an occupier is not under duty to
bring an obvious risk to parents of
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
18.104.22.168 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?
22.214.171.124 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.
126.96.36.199 WOODWARD V MAYOR OF HASTINGS
- child slipped on icy step. no technical
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