Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Occupiers' Liability - Coggle Diagram
Occupiers' Liability
1957
-
-
-
Premises: S1(3)(a) premises are ay fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
-
Visitors: S1(2) visitors are the same as the persons who at common law would be treated as licensees or invitees. This includes express/implied permission, lawful authority and contractual permission
Express permission can be restricted by time, purpose and area (visitors must be very clear of where any areas are denied access and signs must be appropriate)
Tomlinson v Congleton- if specified purpose for entry, if go beyond that they can become a trespasser
Pearson v Coleman Bros- no sign, person was a visitor. Darby v National Trust- sign in car park saying no bathing in the pond, it close to the pond, and other information on the sign, not enough to turn them into a trespasser, still a visitor
-
-
-
Breach
Consider same factors: likelihood of harm, seriousness of harm, precautions, social value etc
-
-
-
Causation & Remoteness
Assumed to be satisfied if breach, duty and loss satisfied. Do not discuss unless there are glaring issues
Defences
Consent: S2(5) allows consent- confirmed Titchener v British Railway Board (White v Blackmore- cannot consent if not aware of specific risks)
S2(3) allows for contributory negligence Young v Kent- a child will be judged against a reasonable child of the same age but can still be contributory
-
1984
Loss S1(1)(a) only physical injury including-S1(9) disease and any impairment of mental/physical condition. S1(8) property damage not recoverable
-
-
Non-visitor/trespasser: Robert Addie & Son v Dumbreck- he who goes o land without invitation or knowledge of their presence, or whose presence is practically objected to
-
Breach (normal factors)
Swain- where there was a fence erected topped with barbed wire 9trespasser went through a hole) the occupier took reasonable steps and no evidence anyone was entering
Young v Kent County Council- children climbing on school roof was a known risk that would be easy to guard against
Discharge through warnings S1(5) must take reasonable steps to warn of danger or discourage them from taking the risk
-
-
-
Exclusion clauses S2(1) 1957 allows can occupier to limit, exclude liability as far as they are free to do so
S3(1) 1957 cannot by contract, exclude or restrict common duty of care (protects employees)
UCTA 1977 S2(1) person cannot exclude/restrict liability for death or personal injury from negligence S2(2) can exclude for other loss if reasonable
CRA 2015 S65(1) trader cannot exclude or restrict for personal injury/death by negligence S62(1) and (2) other losses can exclude/restrict if fair
British Railway Board v Herrington- applies to private occupiers- 'common humanity' minimum standard of care. Would the reasonable conscientious person helped avoid the accident?
-