100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Occupiers Liability 1957 and 1984 £7.49
Add to cart

Presentation

Occupiers Liability 1957 and 1984

 13 views  0 purchase
  • Institution
  • OCR

This is the AO1 knowledge of Occupiers Liability 1957 and Occupiers Liability 1984 + the AO3 knowledge of Occupiers Liability 1957 and Occupiers Liability 1984

Preview 1 out of 1  pages

  • June 17, 2023
  • 1
  • 2022/2023
  • Presentation
  • Unknown
All documents for this subject (17)
avatar-seller
hafsahbegum1
Evaluation: Occupier’s Liability • Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
• Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 • Pre 84 Act:
• Pre-section 2(1): • Pre-84 Act, trespassers were treated harshly
• Pre-Act- different duties were owed to different types of lawful visitor.
• Pre-Act there was a complicated set of common law rules which caused • Trespassers should be not on other people’s property
confusion and injustice. • However it could be argued that, this should not be an
• The 1957 Act is a statutory form of negligence which now creates a absolute duty, as we should have some responsibility for
common duty of care to all lawful visitors. certain injuries to trespassers, a moral duty to take care of
• Explanation of premises: others?
• The Act only covers the state of a premises • The duty itself to trespassers:
• The Act limits the liability here, so alternative actions in different torts
are necessary. • The duty is unfair to the occupier
• Alternative actions to those under the Act are possible e.g. under • Trespassers enter at their own risk
negligence. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take some
• Section 2(2): responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
• An occupier may ‘extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty.’ trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by • Types of premises:
the occupier fro children) • The growth of more dangerous premises requires more
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty. protection
• Exclusion clauses/limitation notices: • An occupier should not allow dangerous premises to exist or
• An occupier can still have numerous means of reducing, removing or operate
avoiding liability.
• The Act relies on lawful visitors being prudent to look after themselves
• However it could be argued that, trespassers should not be on
at all times, including minors (albeit a higher standard of care is owed by other people’s property
the occupier for children) • Children as trespassers:
• An occupier can therefore determine the extent of their duty via
exclusion clauses. • There are difficulties of children appreciating danger as a
• Exceeding permission to be on the premises: trespasser.
• Once a lawful visitor exceeds their scope to be on the premises, they • A higher duty must be owed to children who cannot
become a trespasser. appreciate risk in the same way as an adult.
• Acting beyond the scope must be deemed wrong and therefore not • However it could be argued that, children should be under the
prudent and expose the person to the subsequent consequences. care and supervision of a parent/guardian. They should
• It is unclear as to at what exact point a person acts beyond the scope of understand that trespassing is wrong and can be dangerous.
their lawful permission. The consequences, if so, are potentially
catastrophic. • Compensation:
• Children as lawful visitors: • Compensation is only available for injury
• A higher standard of care is placed on an occupier to ensure the safety • Trespassers are deserving of less protection than are lawful
of children than adults. visitors.
• Children are less likely to see the risk or danger, or the impact of acting
outside the scope of their permission to be on the premises. • However it could be argued that, occupiers must take
• To what lengths must an occupier go to avoid injury? If present, parents responsibility for injuries that occur on their premises – a
should be looking after children, not occupier, but see Phipps v trespasser is simply a label and nothing else.
Rochester Corporations (1955)

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 hafsahbegum1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

53022 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.49
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added