Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

OLA - Non-visitors (Non-visitors (Who is a non-visitor (Old law classed…

- - - - Claimed that the beach should have been planted over but the HOL disagreed saying that the duty was to do what was reasonable which the defendants did by putting signs up and there was a social value to allow access to it for the public who would use it responsibly and it would cost more to make the beach unusable
  - - - COA held that precautions considered reasonable for the safety of adult non-visitors might not be sufficient for children
  - - - Under the 1957 Act an occupier always owes a duty of care to a visitor, however, under the 1984 Act a non-visitor must prove 3 extra elements before a duty will apply to them. These are:
        
        the occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the non-visitor is in the vicinity of the danger or might come into the danger
        
        If it is not clear then the court will look at what the defendant did know to determine if there was a reasonable ground
        
        Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996)
        
        Claimants claimed that the defendant must have known children might try to climb onto the roof and breached duty by taking no precautions - COA disagreed stating that "reasonable grounds to believe" meant that defendants had to know about actual facts which provided grounds for belief not that in the circumstances they ought to have known. No evidence of previous trespass & having fences around the factory that were high there was no reasonable ground to believe the children would get in
        
        Higgs v Foster (2004)
        
        Judge found that even though the defendants knew of the put and the premise was only partly fenced, the pit was right at the back of the premise and had nothing there to attract anyone so it was not reasonably foreseeable that someone would trespass there
        
        Scott v Associated British Ports (2000)
        
        Court held that the defendant did not owe a duty to the victim of the first accident because at the time, they were unaware that children were getting onto the land and playing on the railway. After the first incident, they were aware. They had reasonable grounds to suspect a risk for non-visitors and owed a duty for the second victim. They had not breached a duty though as it was believed the boys would have found a way onto the land whether they did the precautions or not.
        
        the risk is one against which in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the non-visitor some protection
        
        Courts consider costs and practicality of taking precautions and the effect of activities taking place on the premises
        
        Tomlinson v Congleton
        
        Held: "unjust that the harmless recreation of responsible parents and children ... should be prohibited in order to comply with what is thought to be a legal duty to safeguard irresponsible visitors against dangers which are perfectly obvious. The fact that such people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty to take other steps to protect them"
        
        the occupier is aware of a danger on their premise or has reasonable ground to believe that a danger exists
        
        Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)
        
        Container was lying on the bed of a lake but was invisible from the surface - COA held that the defendants did not know about it nor have reasonable grounds to think it was there so they weren't liable
- - - - COA held no duty was owed as the claimant knew of the dangers due to the sign and took the risk anyways