Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Occupiers' liability, The Occupiers Liability Acts cover the…

- - - - Ward v The Ritz Hotel
      - Horton v Jackson
      - Clare v Perry
        
        Unreasonable behaviors = no liability
  - - - Perry v Butlins Holiday World [brick wall]
      - Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [considerable ingenuity]
      - Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [allurements]
      - Phipps v Rochester Corporation [assume parents accompany]
  - - - Roles v Nathan
      - Ogwo v Taylor
  - - - It was reasonable to entrust the work to an independent contractor
      - The occupier had take reasonable care to satisfy himself that the contractor is competent, and
        
        Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
      - The occupier had taken reasonable care to check that the work has been properly done (where possible).
        
        Haseldine v Daw
        
        Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
    - - Rae v Mars (dark factory)
      - Staples v West Dorset - no warning needed for an obvious risk
- - - - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
      - Siddorn v Patel
      - Tomlinson v Congleton BC - not liable for injury caused as a result of adult voluntarily taking an obvious risk
  - - - He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity
      - The risk is one which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection from
      - The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
      - The duty exists when:
        
        D has actual knowledge of relevant facts which can provide him a reasonable ground for belief
        
        Swain v Natui Ram Puri (no past record)
        
        Scott v Associated British Ports (after 1st case; but causation was not established)