Its a complete notes for occupier liability, structured in way easily understandable and to use as guidance for essays writing or problem question. Its included recent case and update. All you need to know about in occupier liability is in one complete note. Further, this area of occupier liability...
OLA 1957 OLA 1984
1 Caused by the state of premise, anything done or neglect to be done on the premises S1(1) OLA 57/84
Dunster v Abbott – Ld. Denning states occupier should only liable for static condition of the premises not thing done or activities carried out on the premises by occupier, his servants or
anyone else.
Ogwo v Talyor – fire is not state of premises.
Fairchild v GFS – asbestos in the premises makes danger but limited to visitor using premises, not apply to activity carries out.
Revill v Newberry – shooting the trespasser is an activity and does not govern by OLA.
Cunningham v Reading Football Club – stadium collapsed and lumps of concrete from the terrace came loose, third party at stadium started throwing lump of concrete around causing
injury to the claimant. Court held occupier owes duty of care with the scope of OLA 57.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council – claimant try to dive in council’s lake despite warning sign and suffer injuries. Court held claimant’s injury cause by his own carelessness and not
any dangerous state of premises.
Tomlinson – obiter by Lord Hoffman and Hobhouse states thing done or omitted to be done on the premises in both act could be interpreted to mean that liability extends to some activity
conducted by the occupier or by other with his consent that create risk to person on the premises.
2 Occupier S1(2) OLA
Wheat v Lacon – occupier entered into service agreement with managers to manage the pub, Claimant injured went try to walk down the stairway when it was dimly lit and lack proper
railing. Court held owners and the managers were both legal occupier and could be dual occupation. It does not matter the owner were not residing in the pub, provided each have
sufficient control over the property will be consider occupier. Ld. Denning state the decision will be different if it was a tenancy agreement and liability will base on whose obligation to
repair.
Shtern v Cunnings – hotel guest was electrocuted when opened a refrigerator. Court held while joint liability as dual occupiers was possible, on the fact, owner/operator of hotel was not
proper occupier instead the managing hotel was proper occupier could be liable.
Harris v Birkenhead – council served notice to owner of their intention to take possession but in fact never took physical possession. Court held council deemed to be an occupier.
3 Place of Injury S1(3)(a) OLA 57 / S1(2) OLA 1984
London Graving Dock v Horton – ship
Haseldine v Daw – elevator
Wheeler v Copas - ladder
4 Type of damage or injury Type of damage or injury
S1(2) Death, personal injury and property damage to visitors S1(8) Death and personal injury to trespasser
5 Visitor Trespasser
S1(2) S1(1) who fall outside visitor OLA 57
(i) licencees and invitees
limitation in term of time and space: clear notice of prohibited/restricted place
Anderson v Coutts – clear notice given to restrict entry into certain parts, ignore such clear to reasonable person its prohibited/restricted place
notice deemed to trespasser. **Previously child trespasser in prohibited place is committed unlawful act and he is not using for its permitted purpose
capable to consider lawful visitor if something in the premise is attractive using
allurement doctrine, after OLA 1984 will deal as child trespasser instead promoted to
lawful visitors (Cooke v Mis-Western Great Railway of Ireland).
Gould v McAuliffe – claimant search outside toilet and got attack by a dog, no sign of
warning deemed to be a lawful visitor. --unless--
The Calgarth – occupier does not have to expressly state a prohibition on the
premises where it is clear to the reasonable person. “When you invite to use staircase,
you do not invite them to slide down the bannister.
Harvey v Plymouth CC – claimant feel into a hole when escaping after getting off a
taxi without paying its fare, court held he is a trespasser because of committed
unlawful act and he is not using for its permitted purpose.
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 lawsimple. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.81. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
