Comparison of the OLA 57 and 84 Acts

• Difference 1. Remedies

  • OLA 57 allows claims for personal injury and property damage
  • OLA 84 only allows claims for personal injury s.1(8)
  • Therefore, OLA 57 is more broad
• Difference 2. Children

  • OLA 57 gives a higher duty of care to children - s.2(3)(a)
  • OLA 84 treats adult trespassers and child trespassers the same (Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust)
• Difference 3. Public Opinion

  • OLA 57 is fair, allows for claims of personal injury and property damage
  • OLA 84 is unfair, allows trespassers to claim for person injury even though they shouldn't have been there in the first place
  • Revill v Newbury - lead to a media outcry as claimant was injured whilst burgling shed and was able to claim even though Newbury was protecting his shed.
• Difference 4. Duty of Care Owed

  • OLA 57 is objective as the occupier must take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe whilst using the premises
  • OLA 84 is subjective under s.1(3) - s.1(3)(a) be aware/reasonable grounds to believe danger exists (Rhind v Astbury Water Park), s.1(3)(b) knows/reasonable grounds people come into vicinity (Donoghue v Folkstone Properties), s.1(3)(c) expected to offer some protection
  • Therefore, the OLA 84 is more limited
• Similarity 1. Definitions

  • occupier - 'anyone in possession or control of the land' (Wheat v Lacon)
  • premises - 'a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft s.1(3)(a), includes ladders (Wheeler v Copas)
  • lawful visitors - s.2(1), invitees, licensees, contractual permission and statutory rights of entry
• Similarity 2. Obvious Dangers

  • the occupier does not need to protect against obvious dangers
  • OLA 57 (Darby v National Trust)
  • OLA 84 (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council)
• Similarity 3. Defences

  • Both acts allow contributory negligence , Law Reform (Contributor Negligence) Act 1945, Volenti non fit injuria, OLA 57 - s.2(5) (White Lion Hotel v James), OLA 84 - s.1(6), (Ratcliffe v McConnell), and Warning Signs (Roles v Nathan)
  • However, only the OLA 57 Act includes exclusion clauses s.2(1)