Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupier's Liability - 1984 Act (Restrictions of the 1984 Act (:red…
Occupier's Liability - 1984 Act
Basic Info
:red_flag: Addie v Dumbreck
originally, occupiers had no liability to trespassers
seen as harsh in respect to child trespassers
:red_flag: BRB v Herrington
the courts then introduced a common duty of humanity to trespassers
given statutory force in 1984 Act
'occupier' and 'premises' defined the same as the 1957 Act
a duty applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors
:black_flag: s.1(1)(a)
the duty covers 'injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them'
provides compensation for personal injuries only
the occupier only owes a duty to trespassers if 3 conditions are satisfied
:black_flag: s.1(3)
the occupier will only owe a duty if:
a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists and
b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger concerned and
c) the risk is one against in which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the trespasser some protection
What duty does the occupier have under the 1984 Act?
:black_flag: s.1(4) = to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger
objective
what's required of the occupier to meet the standard of care depends on the circumstances of each case
the greater the risk, the more precautions the occupier will need to take
Restrictions of the 1984 Act
the courts have emphasised that there are restrictions
:red_flag: Ratcliff v McConnell
occupier does not have to warn adult trespassers of risk of injury against obvious dangers
:red_flag: Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
occupier does not have to warn adult trespasser of obvious risks if trespasser enters at unforeseeable time of day or year
:red_flag: Tomlinson v Congleton BC
occupier does not have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers
:red_flag: Rhind v Astbury Water Park
occupier does not owe a duty for danger of which the occupier is unaware
:red_flag: Higgs v Foster
occupier will not owe a duty to trespassers who the occupier does not expect to enter their premises