This is a well written and clear set of lecture notes to do with the law of tort. Separated into clear and easy to understand sub sections. Notes made by an Accelerated law student in the 2 year law programme, case laws and notes are included. Negligence and nervous shock, occupiers liability, duty...
Common Law:
- Visitors: The occupier owes a common duty of care to lawful visitors. BUT overlap
with negligence at common law.
British Railways Boards v Herrington [1972]
Child was electrocuted on live wire after wandering in from play area. Trespasser, so no duty
of care under Addie v Dumbrek (1929)
- HELD: Addie v Dumbrek “rendered obsolete by changes in physical and social
conditions and has become an incumbrance impeding the proper development of
the law (LJ Pearson)
Trespassers owed a ‘duty of common humanity.’ ”
OLA 1957:
Ward v Tesco [1976] (CA)
Yoghurt spilt on the floor.
- HELD: This could not have happened if the floor was kept clean.
- The defendant was liable in negligence. (Omrod LJ dissenting – see this)
Premises:
Covers fixed or moveable structures, vessels, vehicles and aircraft.
Example – A ladder.
, Omissions and Defects:
- OLA includes liability for not doing anything
- OLA 1957 s1 (1) …due to the state of the premises or things done on them.
- Accepted – duty only applies to dangers from the condition of the land not activities
on the land.
- Example: Driving a car and knocking someone down.
Geary v Wetherspoon plc [2011]
Went to Weatherspoon and was drunk, slid down banister despite there being a sign trying
to prevent this – caused a serious injury. Weatherspoon said this was a voluntary action –
obvious risk.
- HELD: C “freely chose to do something which she knew to be dangerous…she knew
that sliding down the banisters was not permitted, but she chose to do it anyway.
She was therefore the author of her own misfortune. The defendant owed no duty
to protect her from such an obvious and inherent risk.” (Coulson J)
Who is the Occupier?
OLA 1957 – “Someone who would have been an occupier at common law.”
Wheat v Lacon [1966] (HL) AC 552
- HELD: Both R and the D were occupiers and they owed a common duty of care to C’s
husband, as both had some degree of control over the premises.
But they were not in breach of duty – act of stranger.
Harris v Birkenhead Corp [1976]
- HELD: Even though D never had physical possession D was still occupier because D
had the right of control.
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 mbk_2004. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.38. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
