Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers liability Act 1957 - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers liability Act 1957
this act provides the occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to local visitors and if that duty is breached and the visitor's injured, they are entitled to receive compensation.
OCCUPIERS
occupiers are the owner or tenant tenants of the premises there is no statutory definition of an occupier but there is a test of deciding whether a person is the occupier is found in case law. The cases Wheat v E Lacon & Co LTD [1966] and Harris V Birkenhead Corporation [1976] illustrate the test.
in the practice a decision of who is in control of the premises may be influenced by whose insurance policy covers the premises and is able to meet the claim. However sometimes the corporate find that no one is in control of the premises leaving the injured visitor with no claim.
PREMISES
again there is no statutory definition of premises except in S1(3)(a) of the 1957 act, there is a reference to a person having occupation or control of any 'fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.
ADULT VISITORS
invitees- a person who have been invited to enter all her expressed permission to be there.
Licensees- people who may have express or implied permission to be on the land for a particular period.
those with contractual permission- for example, person who has bought an entry ticket for an event.
I was given a statutory right of entry such as meter readings or a police constable exercising a warrant.
Adult visitors are owed the common duty of care according to S2(2). The key point to be made is that the occupier does not have to make the visitor completely safe in the premises, they only have to do what is reasonable.
case: Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme [2002]
CHILDREN
the children on the premises are owed a common duty of care but there is an additional special duty owed to the child visitors. In S2(3) 'the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and as a result the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age'.
where very young children are injured the courts are reluctant to find occupier liable as a child should be under supervision of a parent or other.
a difficulty here is that there is no age limit set as to when the rule applies. If an allurement exists, there will be no liability in the occupier if the damage or injuries suffered is not foreseeable.
Cases: Glasgow Corporation V Taylor [1922]
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955]
Jolley v London borough of Sutton [2000]
PEOPLE CARRYING OUT TRADE OR CALLING
The occupier will owe of tradesmen coming onto the premises are common duty of care. However, by s2(3)(b) 'occupier can expect a person in the exercise of the calling will appreciate a guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as occupier leaves them free to do so'. Therefore this means that the occupier will not be liable where a tradesmen failed to guard against risks which they should know about will be expected to know about in their occupation.
this rule which acts as a defence for an occupier, Only applies with a tradesmen visitor is injured by something related to their trade or calling.
case: Roles v Nathan [1963]
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
The lawful visitor will be owed the common duty of care while on the occupiers land. However if the visitors injured by the workmans negligent work, the occupier may have a defence to be able to pass the claim to the workmen. This is set out in S2(4).
Must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to the independent contractor. The more complicated and specialist the work, the more likely it will be for the occupier to have given the work to a specialist. Illustrated in the case Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941]
The contract the hired must be competent to carry out the task. The occupier should take up references or recommendations to check with the trade Association. The occupier should check that the contractor is completely insured and if the contractor fails to carry appropriate insurance cover this could be a fair indication that the contractor is not competent. This is illustrated in the case of Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket club [2003]
The occupier must check the work has been properly done. The less expert occupier, the more likely that that this condition will require the occupier to employ an expert such as an architect or surveyor. This is illustrated in the case Woodward v the mayor of Hastings [1945]
if all these conditions are satisfied then the occupier will have a defence to a claim and the injured claimant would have to claim directly against the contractor.
DFENCES TO A CLAIM BY A LAWFUL VISITOR
contributory negligence
this applies to the occupiers liability in the same way as for negligence. The court will rule that the claimant is partly responsible for the injuries they have suffered. If it is a successful argument the amount of compensation will be reduced by what the court think is appropriate.
Consent
if it is successfully argued that defendant would not be liable to pay damages to the claimant.
Warning notices
warning can be oral or written. In s2(4) it is stated that a warning is ineffective unless 'in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe'.
what is decided as a sufficient warning will be a question of fact in each case will be decided by the church on the evidence. The premises has extreme danger all the usual the occupier may be required to erect barriers or additional warnings to keep the visitor safe. Illustracted in Rae v Mars Ltd [1990]
However if the danger is obvious and the visitor is able to appreciate it no additional warning is necessary. This is illustrated in the case of staples v West Dorset District Council [1995]
exclusion clauses
by s2(1) occupy is able to 'restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise' which means that the occupier will in any warning be able to limit or exclude completely their liability for any injury calls to the visitor.
This is the case for residential occupiers, though it may not work against a child visitor depending on their age and ability to understand the effect of the exclusion.
REMEDIES
if the occupier is liable for breach of their duty, the remedy to be claimed by the visitor is damages. The court could award damages for personal injury suffered and for any property damaged.