Summary
Summary A* A Level Law Notes Occupiers Liability 1984
- Course
- Institution
Two documents each containing notes for exam structure on how to answer the OLA questions and what cases to use for relevant points
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
matildaaylott
Reviews received
Content preview
Introduction:What is an occupier?
(Same legal points as Occupiers Liability 1957)
- An Occupier is the person with control over the premises at the time of the incident, can be
more than one person with control: Wheat v Lacon
- Look at who is effectively in control of the premises at the time of the incident Harris v
Birkenhead Corporations-> may be no-one in effective control: Bailey v Armes
What are the premises?
s.1(3)(a): any fixed or movable structure (wide definition)
Addie v Dumbreck: originally no liability to trespassers
BRB v Herrington: the courts introduced a common duty of humanity to trespassers
Duty of Care:
s.1(1)(a): duty covers injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the
premises or things done/omitted to be done on them COVERS PERSONAL INJURY ONLY
Common duty of care
s.1(4): To take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the
trespasser is not injured by the danger
only owe duty to trespassers if:
s.1(3):
(a): O is aware of the danger/ has reasonable grounds to believe danger exists
> - Rhind v Astbury Water Park: O does not owe duty for danger where they are
unaware
(b): O knows/ has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is in vicinity of danger
> Higgs v Foster: O doesn't owe duty where O doesn't expect T to enter premises
> Donoghue v Folkestone Properties: O doesn't have to warn T of obvious risks if T
enters at unforeseeable time of day or year
(c): The risk is one against which, in all circumstances O may be expected to offer
some protection
> Ratcliff v McConnell:O does not have to warn trespassers of risk of injury against
obvious dangers
> Tomlinson v Congleton BC: doesn't have to spend money making premises safe
Defences
Warning notices
- (s.1(5) - Any duty owed in respect of a risk may be discharged by taking reasonable steps
to give warning of the danger. (potential defence)
- Rae v Mars: where danger is extreme or unusual, it not enough for there to be a warning; a
barrier or additional notice should be placed
- Westwood v Post Office - O was not liable as the notice was held to be a sufficiently clear
warning for an adult.
Consent
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 matildaaylott. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.75. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52510 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now