Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers Liability (lawful visitor) - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers Liability (lawful visitor)
Lowery v Walker (1911)
There was an implied licence for the claimant to be on the land due to the D’s lack of action against trespassing.
Jolley v Sutton (2000)
Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957, the occupier of a property, Defendant, is required to keep the property reasonably safe for visitors.
The occupiers should expect that children would act with less caution than adults, and have a duty to remove these forms of objects when they pose such a danger.
Wheat v Lacon (1966)
This case defined an occupier as: ‘a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who came lawfully on to the premises’.
and there can be more than one occupier.
Phipps v Rochester Corp. (1955)
The court held that an occupier does not owe liability when they can reasonably expect a young child to be under the supervision of parents or other adults.
Roles v Nathan (1963)
S2 (3) OLA 1957- It is reasonable for the occupier to expect a skilled labourer to guard against the risks associated with his profession.
The defendant gave sufficient warning to the workers: showed DoC so absolved of any liability under S2 (4) OLA 1957.
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945)
(Also a VL case)
The school could have taken reasonable steps to check the job was done properly/the steps were safe, as it was a routine task and not specialised.
Since they failed to do so, they had breached their DoC so were liable.
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)
The occupier has a duty to make the premises reasonably safe for visitors
Does not need to be completely safe
Glasgow Corp. v Taylor (1922)
The occupier has to protect child visitors from allurements to known dangers