Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupier's Liability (1984 (Under s.1(3)(a-c) D must (Know of the…
Occupier's Liability
-
1957
-
Lawful visitor
-
modern interpretation is anyone who the occupier has given express or implied permission to be on the premises
-
Implied
-
Doctrine of Allurement- child is lawful if they come onto the land to investigate something that is dangerous and attractive to them (Jolley v Sutton)
-
-
-
Not lawful
Reckless conduct- (Harvey v Plymouth Council)- LJ Scruton in the Calgarth- "if you invite someone into your house to use the stairs, you do not invite them to slide down the banister"
children- less careful s.2(3)(a)- (Glasgow corp. v Taylor the council)- the D could argue that the parents should be responsible (Phipps v Rochester corp)
Contractors duty- expertise s.2(3)(b)- occupier expects them to take care of themselves. (Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants)
Defences
consent- s.2(5- if the visitor has willingly accepted the risk, the occupier does not owe them a duty of care. 'Volenti non fir injuria' will apply here (Geary v JD Weatherspoon plc)
Excluding Liability- s.1(2)- can expressly restrict or exclude his duty of care towards his visitors
-
-
-
1984
-
-
'intended to be a lesser duty, as to both incidence and scope"- Lord Hauffman in Tomlinson v Congleton BC
Occupier must take such care as in reasonable in all circumstances to see the trespasser does not suffer any injury on the premises (s.1(4)
The danger must come from the dangerous state of the premises or from things done or omitted to be done on them not from the claimant'ts own activites (Keown v Coventry NHS Trust)
Under s.1(3)(a-c) D must
-
Knows or have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity (White v St Albans)
the danger must be one in which all circumstances of the case he may reasonable be expected to offer the trespasser some protection from it (Donaghue v Folkstone)
Discharging the duty
takes reasonable care- likelihood of the trespass, seriousness of the injury, cost and practicality of precautions, age of trespasser, visibilty and attractiveness of danger, obviousness of danger and common sense (Platt v Liverpool City Council)
Under s.1(5) the O may discharge his duty by taking such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger or to discourage a person from taking the risk (Siddorn v Patel)
-
Defences
Volenti non fit injuria- D owes no duty in respect of risks willingly accepted by the trespasser (Ratcliff v McConnell)
Remedy- damages in the form of compensation as doesn't offer contributory negligence as it is clear the judges will accept C may be partially responsible for their own injuries (Young v Kent CC)