OL- Lawful Visitors

• What act does lawful visitors come under for OL?

  Occupiers Liability Act 1957
• First requirement

  Is D an occupier?

  Occupier= owners/tenants

  • Can be multiple occupiers (Wheat v Lacon)
  • No need to be in physical possession (Harris)
  • Could be no occupier (Bailey v Armes)
• Second requirement

  Did it happens on premises?

  • Fixed or moveable structure including aircraft & vessel (s.1(3)(a)
  • Can be a ladder {shows broader definition} (Wheeler v Copas)
• Third requirement

  Is Claimant a lawful visitor

  • Invitees- been invited to enter (s.1(2))
  • Licensees- expressed or implied permission (s.1(2))
  • Statutory right- statutory right to enter (s.2(6))
  • Contractual permission- e.g. brought ticket (s.(5) 1 )
• Fourth requirement

  Common duty of care owned by D

  • There's a common duty of care is to do all that's reasonable to keep visitor reasonably safe for reason they're on premises (OLA 1957 s.(2)
  • Not a requirement to keep them completely safe and can expect visitor to take some responsibility (Laverton v Kiapasha)
• Fifth requirement

  Does visitor belong to group of exceptions?

  Children:

  • D should expect children to be less careful than adults (OLA s.2(3)a)
  • D should provide additional protection against allurements (Glasgow v Taylor)
  • D should protect against actions of children that are reasonably foreseeable (Jolley v Sutton)
  • D can expect children to be supervised by adult (Phipps v Rochester)

  Tradespeople:

  • D can expect tradespeople to be aware of risks in their work (s.2(3)b)
  • Chimneysweeps show this (Roles v Nathan)
• Sixth requirement

  Can D avoid liability for actions of independent contractor?

  Occupier isnt liable for work to a specialist contractor (OLA s.2(4)

  1. Reasonable for D to give work to a specialist contractor (Haseldine v Daw)
  2. Competent and qualified (Bottomley v Todmorden)
  3. Occupier checked work and risk was not obvious (Woodward v Hastings)
• Seventh requirement

  Do any of defences apply?

  1. Contributory Negligence - C partly to blame

  Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

  Sayers v Harlow

  2. Consent - D not liable

  Smith v Baker

  3. Warning signs used

  Only effective if its enough to keep visitor reasonably safe (OLA s.2(4)

  Rae v Morrs

  Trader cannot restrict liability for personal injury (Consumer rights Act s.65)