Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Occupier's Liability - Coggle Diagram

- - - - common law
        
        Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd
  - - - something hidden/unexpected
      - Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc
      - Young v Kent CC
      - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
      - Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd
      - Tomlinson v Congleton BC
      - Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd
    - - Perry v Butlins Holiday World
  - - - NOT from the activity
      - s 1 (1) OLA 1957
        
        but probably not exact meaning
        
        Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
- - - - BUT
        
        C is a child :arrow_up:
        
        s 2 (3)(a)
        
        Jolley v Sutton LBC
        
        proviso:
        
        if parent would reasonably be expected to have taken better care then D will not have increased standard
        
        Phipps v Rochester Corp
        
        but there are limits
        
        Marsden v Bourne Leisure Ltd (t/as British Holidays)
        
        Burke v Southern Education and Library Board
        
        charity
        
        same standard of care
        
        Spearman v Royal United Bath Hosp NHS Foundation Trust
      - Laverton
    - - s 1(3), OLA 1984
        
        Donoghue
        
        (a) the danger is one thatmposes a risk of causing injury to a trespasser
        
        time specific
      - 3 conditions:
        
        (a) danger on the premises
        
        occupier was aware of that danger
        
        OR
        
        reasonably believed that it existed
        
        (shut eye knowledge)
        
        no malice/ ill will required
        
        Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
        
        Young v Kent CC
        
        Rhind v Astbury
        
        (b) in the vicinity of danger
        
        occupier knows there are trespassers in the vicinity
        
        OR
        
        reasonably believed so
        
        Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
        
        time specific to the incident
        
        Tomlinson v Congleton BC
        
        (c) expected to offer trespasser some protection
        
        must be reasonable
        
        occupiers not expected to offer protection to obvious risks
        
        Tomlinson v Congleton BC
        
        adults
        
        Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
        
        children
        
        Burke v Southern Education and Library Board
        
        really small children will require some protection
        
        1 more item...
      - standard
        
        reasonable standard
        
        if it would have been a really cheap/easy solution to make it safe
        
        Young v Kent CC
        
        materials available to D are relevant
        
        Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
        
        sole statutory 'escape hatch'
        
        where occupier gave warning
        
        Ratcliffe v McConnell
        
        obvious dangers do not to be warned about
        
        s 1(5) OLA 1984
  - - - s 5(1)
- - - - obvious risks do NOT need to be warned about
        
        Darby v National Trust
  - - - O’Flynn v Cherry Hill Inns Ltd t/as the Oliver Plunkett Bar
  - - - s 2( (3) b)
        
        1) entrant was a person of special skill
        
        2) risk of danger was ordinary to this type of specialist work
        
        3) specialist could have taken reasonable steps to guard against danger
      - Roles v Nathan
      - Woollins v British Celanese Ltd
    - - s 2(4)(a)
        
        1) there was a warning
        
        2) notice is sufficient (visible)
        
        oral or written fine
      - Roles v Nathan
      - Darby v National Park
        
        obvious risks do not need warning
    - - s 2(4)(b)
        
        1) damage caused by independent contractor
        
        2) injury due to faulty execution of work
        
        3) occupier acted reasonably in employing contractor for job
        
        4) occupier had taken necessary steps as they reasonably ought to to make sure the contractor was competent/work properly done
      - easier it is for occupier to remove danger (even though they didn't create it) the less likely they can rely on this
        
        Martin v Martin Baker Engineering
        
        Haseldine v Daw
- - - - common duty of care
        
        to all lawful visitors
        
        Darby v The National Trust
  - - - 1984 act
        
        Young
        
        Tomlinson
        
        doctrine of allurement
        
        Cooke v Midland Great Western Rly of Ireland
        
        1957 act
        
        but does this doctrine still work? (unclear)
        
        Keown
        
        s 1(2)
        
        Glasgow Corp v Taylor
        
        implied licence to enter
        
        habitual behaviour
        
        1957 act
        
        Cooke v Midland Great Western Rly of Ireland
        
        Maloney v Torfaen CBC
- - - - eggshell skull
        
        scope of duty
        
        harm must be within scope of duty
        
        Darby v National Trust
  - - - Ellis v Hotel Vienna plc
- - - - Young v Kent CC
      - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
      - Spearman v Royal United Bath Hosp NHS Foundation Trust
- - - - NOT for property damage