Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers' Liability 1957 Act (Introduction (Premises - The law…
Occupiers' Liability 1957 Act
Introduction
Occupier - Any person with sufficient degree of control over the state of the premises
Wheat V Lacon
Premises - The law applies to any buildings, as well as land and structures
Section 1(3)
Jolley V Sutton
Visitor - Has either expressed or implied permission and repeated visitors and sometimes trespassers can acquire rights and become lawful visitors
Lowery V Walker
Duty
All occupier's owe all visitors a duty
S2(1)
Occupier's have a common duty of care to all visitors
S2(2)
A duty to take such care that all visitors are reasonably safe using the premises in which they are invited to do so.
There is no duty to eliminate all risks. They only have to do what is reasonable
Laverton V Kiapasha Takeaway
No duty to warn against obvious/self evident risks
Staples V West Dorset District Council
Children
An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults
S2(3)(a)
Phipps V Rochester
Weren't liable as the child should have been supervised
Glasgow V Taylor
Were liable as they should have fenced off the bush
Tradesmen
S2(3)(B)
An occupier can accept that a contractor will appreciate all risks
Nathan V Roles
Occupiers' may not be liable for independant contractors work
S2(4)(B)
Contractors can be treated as occupiers' where work is being carried out
The occupier can rely on the expertise of the contractor in relation to the technical work carried out
Haseldine V Daw
The occupier must take reasonable steps to make sure the contractor is competent
Warnings
Occupiers' must take reasonable steps to remove hazards or warn visitors
S2(4)(a)
A warning alone is not sufficient to keep the visitor reasonably safe
Tomlinson V Congleton BC
Defences
Volenti
It's a complete defence, if the defendant is aware of the risk and takes it then they will be liable.
S2(5)
If Volenti is not successful then contributory negligence can be pleaded
Sayers V Harlow
Contributory Negligence
It's not a complete defence but it does reduce damages
Sayers V Harlow