OL- Evaluation

• Lawful Visitors Evaluation Point

  Supports principles of Tort Law

  Requires D to protect those who they expect to be on their land. OLA used objective test which keeps visitors reasonably safe

  Ensures focus is on safety of claimants which is the principle of tort law
• Lawful Visitors Evaluation Point

  Claims by lawful visitors is favoured over trespassers

  This makes the law fairer as it makes it harder for trespassers to make a claim. This prevents the floodgates argument (claims that could open the door to number of similar cases - overwhelm legal system)

  Rules for trespassers are subjective, providing a good balance between lawful visitors and trespassers
• Lawful Visitors Evaluation Point

  D is not liable for obvious risks

  Occupier only has to do what's reasonable to keep lawful visitors safe. This makes it fairer on D's (Laverton v Kiapasha)

  Warning signs can avoid liability. As there's no need to warn obvious risk to visitors (Staples)

  ---> These rules help to protect D and ensure fairness
• Lawful Visitors Evaluation Point

  Additional protection for children

  Occupiers need to take additional care when lawful visitors may include children.

  Seen in rules of allurements - Glasgow v Taylor. This provides excellent levels of protection

  H/e can be unfair to D. Children can unpredictable. As bigger children should be more aware.

  Children should be supervised - Phipps v Rochester
• Trespassers Evaluation Point


  Law is more restrictive then lawful visitors

  Harder for trespassers to make claim = fair

  E.g. - lawful visitors can claim for property damage and personal injury - OLA 1957.

  Trespassers can only claim for personal injury - OLA 1984

  Rules for trespassers is subjective. Lawful visitors is objective. Meaning its harder for trespasser to prove claim= good balance
• Trespassers Evaluation Point


  Unfair to occupiers

  Trespassers aren't authorised to be on land. They enter at own risk.

  ---> unfair to occupiers as they pay for incidents. They weren't aware that someone was going to access their land

  H/e common duty of humanity - BRB v Herrington. Occupiers may be aware of risk. Therefore they should be acting to avoid it.
• Trespassers Evaluation Point

  Additional protection for children is justified

  Hard to succeed when children are involved. A common duty of humanity was created - BRB v Herrington. This recognised that they are more vunerable than adults.

  Children are susceptible to harm. Occupiers have to help avoid it

  However this is unfair on occupier as they can expect supervision
• Trespassers Evaluation Point

  Occupiers can easily escape liability

  OLA 1984 gives reasons why they wont need to pay compensation.

  E.g. if risk was obvious or had no reason to expect trespasser.

  These provide occupiers with justifiable defences against compensation by showing they acted reasonably

  H/e defences may not protect vulnerable people.

  + areas may naturally attract people, making it reasonable for trespass