OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957 - LAWFUL VISITOR'S

• 1 Duty of care s.2(1)


  Under s.2(1) of the OLA 1957 “ an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all lawful visitor’s”.
• 2 occupier 


  firstly need a occupier a occupier is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises ( wheat v lacon)

  A02) in this case the occupier can be said to be ..
• 3) premises 


  Premises are buildings, land, ships , moveable structures etc

  
  

  A02 here the premises is ...
• 4) visitors 


  The visitor is someone who has express or implied permission to be on the premises

  
  

  visitors can become treesspassers and loose his OLA 1957 protection if he does something or goes somewhere he is not permitted to do Calgarth- "if you invite someone into your house to use the staircase you are not inviting them to slide down the banister"

  
  

  
  

  
  

  A02 in relation to .. they are lawful/ unlawful visitors
• 5 breach of duty

  To establish a breach of duty in occupiers liability act (1957) D has to under s.2(2) “ take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for which he is invited or permitted to be there” taking into account any special risk factors

  THIS IS DONE BY APPLYING THE REASONABLE OCCUPIER TEST SO D WILL BE COMPARERED TO THE REASONABLE OCCUPIER FOR THAT PREMISES THEN CONSIDER RISK FACTORS

  
  

  A02. ) apply risk factors

  This would mean that it is likely that Steve has breached his duty and is liable to ...
• ( LAVERTON V KIAPASHA TAKEAWAY) .

  Adult visitors are owed a duty of care in a reasonable safe premises which does not have to be completely safe
• Child visitors 


  under S2(3)(a)states the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and the premises should be reasonably safe for a child of that age .
• (GLASGOW CORP V TAYLOR)

  A higher standard of care is owed by an occupier of a premises if children are allured as the principle of allurement states The occupier must protect child visitors from allurement
• ( PHIPPS V ROCHESTER CORP)

  Very young children are expected to be supervised by adults as it is unreasonable for an occupier to cater for a unsupervised child.
• S.2(3)(B)( roles v Nathan)


  S.2(3)(B) states that if the visitor is a tradesman or someone of special knowledge coming to visit the occupier can expect them to take care against any special risks so if a builder gets injured doing the builders job he’s employed to do then he’s expected to know and take reasonable care in doing that job

  
  

  OCCUPIERS not liable where the danger is a risk ordinarily involved in their job the professional is more knowledgeable of the risk than the OCCUPIER
• (ROE V MINISTER OF HEALTH 1954)

  The time of breach

  
  

  - there may be a gap in time between the breach and case in court the defendant should be compared to the reasonable man and standards known of the time of breach as the defendant cannot be expected to have known any improved standards of the future.
• (BOLTON V STONE)


  The likelihood of harm

  
  

  The higher the risk of the injury the more standard of care increases as the risk is foreseeable.

  D is expected to take a proportionate amount of care the less foreseeable the harm is the less care the defendant is expected to take
• (PARIS V STEPHNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL 1951)

  The risk of serious injury

  
  

  More serious the harm is the more care is expected from the defendant
• ( WATT V HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL)


  Social value of D action

  
  

  If the defendant is doing something more important the law will allow D take less care such as NHS / POLICE
• (Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953)

  The cost of avoiding harm

  
  

  Reasonable steps should be taken to reduce the risk and spending money to prevent the breach should be reasonable and propertionate to the harm
• Causation factual causation 


  Claimants injury would not have happened but for Ds act or ommisions
• Contributory negligence 


  If claimant was careless and found to be the main cause of his injury he may have ‘broken the chain of causation’ and therefore the claim will fail (Mckew v Holland)

  However, if he is a lesser cause he will be ‘contributory negligent and receive less damages (Sawyers v Harlow)However, if C is partly to blame for his own carelessness he may be 'contributory negligent (Sawyers v Harlow) then any award will be reduced by the percentage of his contribution.
• Haseldene v Daw( fell through the floor) occupier who employed the contractor can avoid liability if injury was due to their faulty work HOWEVER if the occupier employs a incompetent qualified contractor or the faulty dangerous work was obvious then the occupier IS LIABLE 


  Under s.2(4)(b) the occupier will have a defence if their contractor has caused the accident However, this defence will not apply if the occupier should reasonably have known of the hazard and did not remove it.
• Consent 


  Claimants consent to damage suffered or to the risk of damage claimant can't sue as he took the risk in participating in the dangerous activity D PROVIDING D TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTION
• S.4(a) warning signs 


  Warning signs don't mean D has discharged his duty however they can discharge duty if CLAIMANT IGNORES THE SIGN OR the risk of harm is obvious
• Structure

  Structure

  
• Causation 


  If D has breached his duty he may still not be liable if an intervening act or event broke the chain of causation in between the negligence and damage

  Intervening acts -

  • Act of the claimant ( mckew v Holland ) - contributory negligence
  • Third party ( topp v London country bus ltd 1993 )
  • Intervening act of nature