Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupier's Liability - 1957 Act (Liability to children under the 1957…
Occupier's Liability - 1957 Act
s.2(1) OLA 1957
the occupier of the premises owes the common duty of care to all lawful visitors
common duty of care = to take care in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises
lawful visitor = legitimate visitor, anyone with a lawful right to be on the premises
lawful = permitted by law
if the occupier breaches the common duty of care and if the lawful visitor suffers damage as a result, then the lawful visitor may be awarded compensatory damages
Lawful visitors
the duty in the 1957 Act only applies if the visitor is carrying out activities that are authorised within the (express or implied) terms of the visit
a visitor who strays may lose the protection of the 1957 Act
who is included
adults
children
workmen
People not covered by this Act
those using private right of way
those entering land under an access agreement under the :black_flag: National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
this is covered by the 1984 Act
no duty is owed to people using a public right of way
Lawful adult visitors
invitees
express permission
e.g. friends/family
licensees
implied permission
e.g. plumber, going into a store
contractual permission
through a contract
e.g. bus/train ticket, cinema
statutory right
their lawful right
e.g. police officer, meter reader
s.2(2) OLA 1957
the occupier should 'take such care as in all the circumstances... is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited...to be there'
the occupier does NOT have to make the premises completely safe
:red_flag: Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
it only needs to be reasonably safe for visitors
Standard of care re lawful visitors
the standard of care is that applied in negligence - the standard of the reasonable man
this means that the occupier is only obliged to guard against what is reasonably foreseeable
where the damage (loss or injury) from the state of the premises would have been anticipated by a reasonable person
:red_flag: Rochester Cathedral v Debell
Liability to children under the 1957 Act
owes the common duty of care plus an additional special duty
:black_flag: s.2(3) = the occupier 'must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults' and as a result 'the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age'
what may pose a risk to an adult may be dangerous to a child
children are less likely to appreciate risks and may even be attracted to danger
:red_flag: Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
the occupier should guard against any kind of 'allurement' that puts a child visitor at risk
allurement = attraction
:red_flag: Phipps v Rochester Corporation
occupier may not be liable where very young children are injured because the occupier can expect parents to supervise very young children
:red_flag: Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
even if an allurement exists, the occupier will only be liable where the damage was reasonably foreseeable
Liability to people carrying out trade/calling under the 1957 Act
the occupier owes tradespeople entering the occupier's premises the common duty of care, but :black_flag: s.2(3)(b) when carrying out activities within their trade, the tradesperson should 'appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it'
an occupier will not be liable to tradespeople who suffer damage when they fail to guard against risks that they should know about
:red_flag: Roles v Nathan
any risks that are incidental (goes with) to their work
this acts as a defence for the occupier, the occupier will be liable if the tradesperson is injured by something not incidental