Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

OLA - Visitors (Limitations on permission (Both express and implied…

- - - - Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
        
        HOL held that they were liable because they knew the berries looked like cherries which could attract children and that small children are "inquisitive and easily tempted" and would not understand the risk and they should have taken precautions such as fencing
      - Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000)
        
        Stated that the children playing on the boat was foreseeable and so was the children's injuries and should have been enough for the council to take precautions
    - - Phipps v Rochester Corporations (1955)
        
        Corporation knew that children played on the land but had made no attempts to make it safer. The Court held that the occupiers were still not liable as it was the parents duty to make sure a child that young did not wander alone or to at least make sure the child only went to specific and safe places. The outcome would have been different if it concerned a park
      - Bourne Leisure v Marsden (2009)
        
        Claimed that the pond should have been fenced off to prevent the danger to children however, COA disagreed stating that the park owners did not have a duty to fence it off because guests were made aware of its existence which made it clear to parents to prevent their child wandering off and the park was therefore not liable.
- - - - Court held the occupier was not liable as they had used what they believed was a competent firm to maintain the lift and as the work was highly technical, it was unfair to expect them to check the work was done to a good standard themselves
    - - Court held that the occupiers could be liable because no special technical knowledge was required to check he step had been properly cleaned and so the occupier was expected to take the same degree of care as an ordinary person
- - - - Anyone who can show the circumstances were easily assumed to be giving them permission to enter
      - Anyone who has implied permission and enters the premises and states their business to the occupier - this depends on the situation to what this means
      - There is no implied permission if the occupier makes it clear they do not want anyone entering
      - Permission can be implied by the occupiers behaviour
        
        Lowery v Walker (1911)
        
        The defendant never took steps to prevent people using the short cut to another place on his land. The claimant was injured upon this land and the courts held that as the defendant never did anything to prevent or discourage people then it could be implied permission. This decision is less likely nowadays due to the 1984 Act.
    - - 1957 Act includes a visitor being anyone who enters premises under a right by the law - with or without occupier permission. i.e police with warrants
    - - Anyone the occupier has actually invited onto the premises and givens permission to enter. This can be given in advance too.
- - - - Greenhalgh v British Railways Board (1969)
        
        Held that people using a public right of way were not visitors under the 1957 Act (i.e the streets)
    - - The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gives general right to walk on land that falls into "mountain, moor, heath or down" (right to roam), however, states that they are not visitors and so are not covered by the 1957 Act but are covered under the 1984 Act
- - - - "exercise of his calling" = someone entering premises in order to do a particular job and where a risk normally arises in the course of their work, the occupier does not need to take special precaution to prevent this as long as they allow the visitor to take their own precautions.
        
        Roles v Nathan (1963)
        
        Occupier held not liable as carbon monoxide poisoning was a situation likely to arise in a sweepers job, however, Lord Denning stated if the stairs had given way, the occupier would have been liable as that was not a likely possibility in this career.
        
        If someone is exercising their calling and takes all precautions but is still injured by a hazard associated by their job then the occupier might still be liable
        
        Salmon v Seafarers Restaurant (1983)
        
        A firefighter was injured whilst handling a fire at the restaurant which was very serious so even though they had taken normal precautions, they were still likely to be injured. It was held that even though it is apart of the job to tackle fires, the occupier could not escape liability as these precautions had not be sufficient enough to prevent injury.
- - - - When an accident is partly the claimants fault
      - Damages will be reduced if defendant is successful
      - s.2(3) provides this defence and states that the circumstances to be taken into account include "the degree of care, and want of care which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor.
    - - where a claimant has voluntarily accepted risk of harm
      - 1957 Act s.2(4) states that "the common duty of care does not impose on an occupier an obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willing accepted as his by the visitor"