Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
BACKGROUND OF DUTY
Traditionally, an occupier owes a trespasser no duty at all other than not to deliberately or recklessly inflict injury. This rule was harshly applied particularly to child trespassers in Abbey v Dumbreck [1929]. When a four-year-old child was killed when he fell through the unprotected cover of a wheel on colliery land there was no compensation claimed by the parents as the child was a trespasser.
The House of Lords, making use of the 1966 practice statement, were able to change the law and introduced a duty of 'common humanity' owed by occupiers. the case which introduced this 'common humanity' was Herrington v British rail board in [1972].
SCOPE OF THE DUTY
By s1(1)(a) a duty applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors for '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'
It provides compensation for personal injuries only damage to property is not covered reflecting the view that trespasses are deserving of less protection than lawful visitors.
The occupier will only owe a duty of care under s1(3) if:
they are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
They know or have a reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in vicinity of danger or that they may come into the vicinity of danger.
The risk is one against which in all circumstances of the case they may be expected to offer the other some protection.
duty under s1(4) is to 'take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trust person is not injured by reason of the danger' The care is objective what is required of the occupier depends on the circumstances of each case the greater degree of risk the more precautions the occupier has to take.
Factors to be taken into account is; the nature of the premises, the degree of danger, the practicality of taking precautions and the age of the trespasser.
ADULT TRESPASSERS
concept of obvious dangers especially for adult trespassers. The occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured in obvious danger. A case which illustrates this is Ratcliff v McConnell [1999].
The time of day and the time of year when the accident happened will be relevant for whether the occupier owes a duty of care this can be seen in the case Donoghue V Folkestone properties [2003].
an occupier does not have to spend lots of money to making the premises safe the dangers can be seen in the case of Tomlinson v congleton borough Council [2003]
The occupier will not be liable if they had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. Illustrated in the case Higgs v Foster [2004]
the occupier will not be liable if they were not aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect the danger existed this can be seen in the case Rhind v Astbury Water Park [2004]
CHILD TRESPASSERS
the same statutory rules apply to child visitors as to adult visitors. The approach of judges towards claims by child trespasses is the same for adults as can be seen by the following cases can be Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS trust [2006] and Baldacchino V West Wittering [2008].
DEFENCES
Contributory negligence- this defence can apply to reduce the damages payable to the claimant by such proportion as the judge thinks appropriate to reflect the claimants responsibility for their injuries.
Consent (also known as Volenti)- this defence appears to be allowed by s1(6) of the act if the trespasser appreciates the nature and the degree of the risk more than just its existence.
warnings can be an effective defence, especially for an adult trespasser, it warns the danger in clear terms. it will be sufficient for a child trespasser, depending on age and understanding of the child.
Case: Woodward v Post Office [1973]