Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers Liability - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers Liability
Occupiers Act 1984 deals with liability with trespassers.
Adie v Dumbreck; There was a harsh interpretation of the rule where a 4 year old child was killed when he fell through the unprotected cover of a wheel on farmland.
It was held that as the child was a trespasser, the parents weren't allowed to claim compensation.
Herrington v British Rail Board; 6 year old child was badly burnt when he walked on an electric railway line.
It was held that there was a limited duty owed when the occupier knew of the danger, and the likelihood of the trespass.
1984 act only, allows the trespasser to claim for personal injury and not for any damage to any property.
s.1(3) Occupiers liability act 1984; A duty is owed in 3 situations;
a) Occupier is aware of the danger or had reasonable grounds to believe it exist.
b) Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger.
c) The risk is one against which he may be expected to offer some protection.
Adult Trespasser; Obvious danger - The occupier is not liable for anything that is 'obvious' particularly concerning adult trespassers.
Ratcliff v McConnell; A warning notice in swimming pool read 'shallow end'. The pool was always kept locked after hours and the c knew that entry was prohibited. He was a trespasser and was injured when he dived in.
it was held that he was aware of the risk and accepted it by jumping in.
Donghue v Folkstone Properties; C was injured when he trespassed on slipway. He dived into the sea. Injury happened at around midnight, in winter.
It was held that the occupier didn't owe a duty of care. A reasonable occupier wouldn't expect a trespasser to 'engage in such foolhardy escapade'
The cost implications of making something safe.
- Tomlinson v Congleton*; Council owned a park that had lake. Warning signs posted which prohibited swimming and diving as the water was dangerous. Council aware these were generally ignored. They made lake inaccessible but delayed. During the delayed time, c went swimming and struck his head on the sandy bottom and was paralysed.
It was held that on appeal to the COA they allowed the claim under the 1984 act, as a result of the seriousness of the risk of injury, the frequency that people were exposed to the risk and the fact that the lake was an 'allurement' meant that the lake should have been closed to the public with a greater urgency.
However, the council appealed to the HOL who accepted the council's appeal:
1) The danger wasn't due to the state of the premises
2) Trespasser chose to run the risk; the defendant shouldn't have had to guard against it.
3) The practicality and cost of avoiding the danger wasn't reasonable to expect of the occupier.
v importan t as similar to a 3 part test so if all proven then the claim wont go thru
If the occupier has no reason to suspect that there might be a trespasser then there will be no liability:
Higgs v Foster; Police officer investigating crime scene fell into an uncovered pit suffering career ending injuries.
It was held that although the occupiers' knew about the pit, and the police officer was a trespasser, the occupiers' couldn't have anticipated his presence therefore they couldn't be liable.
They will also not be liable if they were unaware of the danger or had no reason to suspect that danger existed:
Rhind v Astubury; A fibreglass container at the bottom of a lake was unknown to the occupier. They had erected a notice which stated 'private property. Strictly no swimming.' The claimant jumped into the pool and was injured.
It was held that the occupier didn't know of the dangerous objects beneath the surface of the water so could not therefore, be liabl under s.1(3).
Children;
Judges interpreted law fairly similar in respect of child trespassers;
Baldaccino v West wittering; 14 year old boy climbed outpost. Dived off and suffered injury. He was classed as a lawful visitor to the beach but was a trespasser to the outpost..
It was held that his claimed failed as this was considered to be an obvious danger.
-
s.2(2) states that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited to be there.
Laverton v Kiapasha; Takeaway shop had taken reasonable precautions for the wet weather and slippy floor.
It was held that the customers can be reasonably safe if they take reasonable care for their own safety so the shop was NOT liable.
Rochester Cathedral v Debel; C injured by tripping over a small lump of concrete in the precincts of Rochester cathedral.
Held that;
1) Tripping and falling are everyday occurrences and the cathedral couldn't be responsible for ensuring the roads surrounding the cathedral were pristine.
2) The risk is reasonably foreseeable.
3) Minor defect doesn't make visitor unsafe.
Premises must pose a real source of danger before foreseeability of the risk can be found.
Darby v National Trust; Man drowns in pond owned by national trust. 2 ponds were used for fishing and had appropriate warnings. The rest were commonly used for swimming and deceased had previously swam in these waters.
It was held that the NT weren't liable as there was no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
Sometimes things are pure accidents!
Cole v Davis; C was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole in the village green, in the past there had been maypole erected.
It was held that since her claim was nearly 2 years after the fete, the duty couldn't last that long, inevitably the hole had been opened up again by a stranger.
Children are different!
s.2() Occupiers liability act 1957; The premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age and the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
Taylor v Glasgow corp; 7 yr old ate poisonous berries in a botanical gardens and died. Shrub wasn't fenced off.
It was held that the occupier should have expected that a young child might be attracted to berries as they were an allurement.
However, there has also been cases where the courts have taken the view that a very young child should be supervised.
Phipps v Rochester corp; 5 year old child was injured by falling down trench dug by the d.
It was held that the D wasn't liable as the parents should have had the child under proper control.
However...
Jolley v London; Council didn't move abandoned boat for 2 yrs. It was an obvious danger and when two young boys tried to repair it, it fell on one boy who was injured. The action failed in the COA as the action taken by the boys wasn't reasonably foreseeable.
It was held that the HOL reversed this decision! It was very foreseeable that children would play on an abandoned boat so occupier should have foreseen the risk.
Independent Contractor;
s.2(4) - if a visitor is injured by a workman's negligence, the occupier can pass the claim onto the workman.
3 requirements must be satisfied;
1) Reasonable for occupier to have given the work to the independent contractor.
Haseldine v Daw; C injured by faulty lift which was surveyed by group of technicians week before. C sued building owner.
It was held that the occupier wasn't liable for the negligent repair of a lift. Repairing lifts was considered to be highly specialised activity.
2) Hired contractor must be competent to carry out the task.
Bottomley v Todmorden; Club hired stunt team to carry out firework display. The team chose actual explosives like gunpowder and petrol. They required assistance from c who got burnt when it inevitably went wrong.
It was held that the stunt team had no insurance and the court held that it was sufficient to impose liability on the cricket club.
3) Occupier must check the work as been properly done.
Woodward v The mayor; Occupiers were held liable when a child was injured on the school steps that were negligently left icy after cleaning off snow. Danger should have been obvious to the occupiers.
Held that in this case, this was quite a low level inspection requirement. The more complex and technical knowledge is expected the less that is required from the occupier.
What counts as a 'lawful adult visitor'? Invitees - People who have been invited to enter. Licensees - People who have expressed or implied permission to be on the land for a particular period. Contractual permission - Bought ticket for entry to the event. Statutory right of entry - Police excersising warrant etc.
-
-
-