Exam (elaborations)
occupiers' liability essay
- Course
- Institution
i got 66 on this answer.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
lolaodukoya
Content preview
The scenario requires a discussion of occupiers' liability. Occupier's liability refers to theliability of an occupier to persons injured on their premises. S1(2) of the Occupiers'
Liability Act states that an occupier is a person "who would at common law be treated as
an occupier". Therefore, we must look to the common law. In the case of Wheat v Lacon
Lord Denning stated that an occupier is anyone who exercises a "sufficient degree of
control over premises". Ron is the occupier of Arkwright's premises as he is the manager
of Arkwright's project and therefore exercises a "sufficient degree of control over the
premises". S1(3) OLA 1957 defines premises as "any fixed or moveable structure,
including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft." The private house owned by Arkwright's
Supermarkets is "premises" for the scenario. Liability under this tort is governed by OLA
1957, which deals with visitors and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) which
deals with non-visitors. S1(2) of the OLA 1957 defines a visitor as persons who at
common law would be treated as invitees or licensees. The scope of both acts is set out
in S1(1) of the Acts and relates to "dangers due to the state of the premises or to things
done or omitted to be done to them."
An employer can be liable for the tortious act of an employee commit during employment
through the doctrine of vicarious liability (Cox v Ministry of Justice). As Ron was
employed by Arkwright’s supermarkets plc any negligent act performed by Ron will make
Arkwright vicariously liable
(i) Norman is the potential claimant and Ron is the potential defendant. Norman could
claim for the injury to his leg and the damage to his iPod., There is an implied license for
children to enter the premises where no measures are taken to prevent them from
entering (Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway Co of Ireland). It could be inferred that
Norman had an implied license to enter the premises because Ron was aware of the
broken fence and the fact that children were playing on the premises but took no
measures to prevent it. Therefore, Norman was a licensee, a lawful visitor. As
established, Ron is the occupier. Thus, liability is to be governed by OLA 1957. Under
S2(2) OLA 1957 an occupier owes a common duty of care to "take such care as is
, reasonable in the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe". S2(3)
OLA 1957 states that "an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than
children" and so more is required of an occupier to discharge this duty. The statute does
not provide any guidance as to how such a duty is to be discharged, so we must look to
the common law. An occupier who can reasonably foresee that a child will come onto
their premises must guard against tempting a child into danger by allurement or trap
that would not be a hazard to an adult (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor). the defendant
was held liable after a 7-year-old died from eating poisonous berries. There were no
warning signs to prevent the child from eating the berries. In this scenario, it is
reasonably foreseeable that an abandoned house would allure children to play on the
site. To guard against this, there were a number of notices warning the public from
entering the premises. S.2(4)(a) OLA 1957 states 'where damage is caused to a visitor
by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be
treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the
circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.' In deciding
whether Ron successfully discharged his duty, it needs to be determined whether the
warning enabled Fletcher to be 'reasonably safe'. The placement and size of the warning
signs are likely to be important here. If the sign was on the fence that was broken down
the warning sign would likely render Ron incapable of discharging his duty. The facts
suggest that there was more than one warning sign and so this is unlikely to be a
problem. Further, an occupier is entitled to assume that parents would warn their
children of dangers (Simkiss v Rhondda BC). Although Norman's mother did not see the
notices, the dangers of playing on an abandoned site would be familiar to her and so she
should have warned Norman of the danger. Hence, Ron was no required to fence off the
house as he could rely on the fact that Margaret would take reasonable steps to prevent
Norman from coming into danger. Consequently, Ron is likely to be found not liable for
the harm to Norman.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lolaodukoya. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.81. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now