Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

TORT LAW (Occupiers C sues the occupier for damage/injuries/loss while on…

- - - - Invitees - Those invited to come onto land
      - Licensees
      - Those who enter pursuant to a contract
      - Exercising a right conferred by law
    - - Rochester Cathedral v Debell
        
        Man tripped over a broken fence post
        
        Wasn't more an an ordinary risk
        
        A visitor is still reasonably safe if there is only a minor defect
    - - ◆ S 2(3) states that the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and that the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.
      - Glasgow Corp v Taylor
        ○ Glasgow Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous, no warning or protection was offered.
    - - ○ S 2(3) states a duty of care is owed to tradesman coming onto property, however, the professional should ‘appreciate and guard against any special risks to their trade.’
      - Roles v Nathan
        
        Chimney sweeps, died
        
        The defendant was not liable.
        
        The dangers were special risks ordinarily incident to their calling.
        
        The warnings issued were clear and the brothers would have been safe had they heeded the warnings
    - - S 2(4) If a visitor is injured by a contractor’s faulty work, liability can be passed to the contractor instead, if the occupier
        
        Acted reasonably in entrusting the contractor
        
        Taken reasonable steps to satisfy that the contractor was competent.
        
        Took reasonable steps to inspect the work.
      - Haseldine v Daw
        The Court of Appeal held that the only obligation on the landlord was to ensure that the lift was reasonably safe and that he had employed competent engineers to inspect the machinery. It was held that the landlord was not liable for the incident. The owner was not aware of the danger caused by the fact that the mechanic had not repacked the machine satisfactorily
        The court held that the technical and specialist nature of lift maintenance meant that the quality of the survey was not something that the occupiers could reasonably be expected to verify.
    - - Warning Notices
        
        To be effective the notice must be enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.
        
        Rae v Mars Ltd
        
        Surveyor fell , hurt himself,no warnings (tho he was contributory negligent)
        
        Unless the danger is obvious
        
        Cotton v Derbyshire Dales CC
        
        Claimant drunk, fell off a cliff
      - Exclusion clauses
        
        Occupier is able to restrict, modify, or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise
      - Consent/Contributory
- - - - Oldest. Whether the employer has control over the employee and what was done.
      - Mersey Docks v Coggins
        
        Crane driver + crane on loan to the harbour, injured C, employer was VL as they were still in control of employee and equipment
    - - A worker will be an employee if his work is fully for the business, and not if he's an accessory (then will be an independent contractor)
      - Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans
        
        Engineer wrote a book with knowledge he acquired working at a firm
        
        Was an employee
- - - - No set amount of people,. just a selection
      - PYA Quarries
        
        Operated a quarry, dust + noise
        
        Public nuisance - affected a class of people.
    - - C must show that they have suffered special damage over and above what other members of the class have suffered
      - Corby
        
        Toxic sludge contaminating ground, children born with deformities, guilty.
      - Halsey
        
        Acid rain from Esso damaged C's car
        
        can claim for damage to posessions
    - - Consent
      - Contributory negligence
      - Statutory authority (authorised by statute, and the pros outweigh the cons)
  - - - Unlawful interference
        
        Locality
        
        Can't complain about factory noise if you live on an industrial estate
        
        Duration
        
        Sensitivity
        
        Malice
        
        Benefit
        
        Human rights (article 8)
        
        Long
        Dogs
        Smell
        Many
        Big
        Hams
      - Indirect interference
        
        Must be indirect and continuous
        
        Hunter v Canary Wharf
        
        TV not a right
        
        An interest in property is required
        
        Laws
        
        Sex shop, indirectly interfering with how they enjoyed their land
      - C must suffer damage
        
        Extent of harm is judged on the basis of the impact on the claimant
        
        Halsey
        
        Car damaged
      - Defences
        
        Prescription
        
        If the action has carried on for at least 20 years and there has been no complaints, then D may have a prescriptive right to continue.
        
        Sturges v Bridgman
        
        D ran a confectionary shop,
        
        New guy moved in, claimed for nuisance, D tried to claim prescription, didn't count
        
        Moving to nuisance - NOT A DEFENCE
        
        Statutory Authority
        
        Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery 1980
        
        Oil refinery was neccessary