Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
~law~ OCCUPIERS LIABILITY unit 4 (occupier's liability to…
~law~
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
unit 4
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Bailey v Armes 1999
couple being sued over injury to their friends son
they weren't liable because they didn't have enough control
a lawful visitor is:
-a person who's been given expressed or implied permission to enter by the occupier
-anyone who has a statutory right of entry
Wheat v E. Lacon and Co 1966
d owned a pub and employed managers who lived on the premises and occupied a private flat there
a paying guest fell down the stairs in the private part of the pub and died
there was no handrail on part of the stairs and some one had removed a lightbulb on the stair way
was decided that neither the managers or the owner breached a duty
s.2 (2) of the occupiers liability act 1957
"a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there"
workmen
1-the occupier owes the common duty pf care to the workman visitor but the occupier can expect that a workman will appreciate and guard against risks associated with his job so far as the occupier leaves them free to do so-
Roles v Nathan 1963
Roles were employed by Nathan to be chimney sweeps
a heating engineer had warned that the flues they were going to clean were dangerous due to carbon monoxide emissions
the engineer monitored the situation and ordered everyone out of the building due to the high levels of carbon monoxide
they were told to go back and work the next day when the fumes had left and to not light the fires
they were found dead having gone back in the evening to work and worked with the fires lit
the occupiers weren't liable because there were clear warnings
2-where injury is caused to a visitor due to the faulty work of an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier will not be liable if it is shown that-
-he acted reasonably in giving the work to the contractor
-he took reasonable steps to check the contractor was competent
-that the work had been properly done
adults
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme 2000
after a night out c went to the defendants kebab shop, whilst waiting she fell and broke her ankle
c claimed that the ground was wet from people bringing in water from the rain
d argued that, the floor had recently been relayed with slip resistant tiles, there was a mat and there was a mopping system though this couldn't be done with a shop full of customers
even though d owed c a duty of care in this case he did not breach that duty
Clark v Bourne Leisure 2011
c was a disabled woman who injured herself falling down the stairs in her wheelchair
evidence showed that the available ramp was available and entirely safe for wheelchairs and the stairs were not, any wheelchair user taking reasonable care for his or her safety would avoid using them
she was an authorised visitor who was owed a duty of reasonable safety
that duty wasn't broken because of her unreasonable action
children
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor 1922
d owned a botanic gardens which was open to the public
a 7 year old boy ate some berries from one of the shrubs which was poisonous and the boy died
there were no warning signs and the shrub wasn't fenced off
-the berries were an allurement
the occupier should've expected that a young child might be attracted to the berries
defences to a visitor's claim under the 1957 act
-contributory negligence-
the court can reduce the amount of damages
Sayers v Harlow UDC 1958
c was using a public toilet got trapped in the cubicle, when trying to escape she trod on a toilet roll holder gave way and she broke her leg
her claim was successful but wasn't awarded as much damages
-consent of the claimant to suffer the injury-
a complete defence
-warnings-
can be written or oral and will usually be enough for a full discharge for the occupier
occupier's liability to trespassers
-Addie v Dumbreck 1929-
kid got injured when trespassing on a building grounds
no claim because he was a tresspasser
-BRB v Herrington 1972-
kid electrocuted when crossing a train line where there was a gap in the fence
was seen as a common duty of humanity for the train line company to be liable even though the child was a trespasser
-s1(3) occupiers liability act 1984-
a duty of care is owed to the trespasser if
the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or may come in to the vicinity of danger
the risk is one in which in all circumstances of the case he may reasonably be expected to offer the other person protection
"to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to see that the entrant doesn't suffer any injury by reason of the danger concerned
Ratcliff v McConnell 1998
student went out drinking and then went diving in a pool after hours, he dived in the shallow end and hit his head causing him to be permanently paralysed
there was a locked gate and signs every where stating that it was prohibited to enter after hours
the court of appeal found that the occupiers weren't liable as they'd taken reasonable precautions and c was aware of the risks
Donogue v Folkestone Properties Limited 2003
c was a diver and decided to go swimming after drinking
he broke his neck on an underwater obstruction
there were no warning signs out but the occupier had employed security guards to stop people diving during day hours
as a scuba diver it was common knowledge to check water levels and obstructions before diving
the occupier was not liable
a reasonable occupier would not expect that a trespasser might be present or engage in such a foolhardy escapade
child trespassers
-s1(3) of the 1948 occupiers liability act-
Keown v Coventry Healtchcare NHS Trust 2006
11 year old c, was showing friends how to climb the fire escape when he fell fracturing his arm and suffering a significant brain injury
he had appreciated the danger
it wasn't the state of the premises but what the child was doing on them which was the cause of harm
occupier was not liable