ola 1957

• occupier not defined in the act s1(2) common law rules apply
• occupier is the person who controls the premesis
• can be more than one (wheat v lacon)
• this covers personal injury and damage to property
• occupier not defined in the act - s1(2) rules of common duty shall apply
• occupier is a person who controls premisies
• can be more than one - wheat v lacon
• court can find that no one is in control - bailey v armes
• premises s1(3)(a) is a fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, veichle and aircraft
• lawful visitors include invitees, liscencees, those with contractual permission and those with a statutory right
• duty of care adults s2(2) imposes a common duty of care - reasonable safe
• laverton v kiapasha - doesn't have to be completly safe just reasonably
• accidents happen - dean v rochester cathedral
• duty does not extend to pure accidents - cole v royal britsh legion
• duty of care for children - s2(2) and s2(3) - must be prepared for children to be less careful
• protect children from allurements - glasgow v taylor
• can expect parents to supervise young children - phipps v rochester
• occupier liable for reasonably forseeable injuries - jolley v sutton
• s2(3)(b) duty of care for tradespeople - occupier may expect tradesperson to guard against risks
• roles v nathan - workmen shoudl guard and appreciate risks
• liability for independant contractors - o can avoid liability if neg was from contractor - s2(4)(b)
• o must prove three things -

  reasonable to call in contractor

  contractor was competent

  o must inspect work
• reasonable to call contractor - haseldine v daw
• contractor must be competent - bottomley v todmorden
• o must inspect work - woodward v hastings
• consent - smith
• warnings s2(4)
• warning must be seen - rae v mars
• if obvious no warning is needed - staples v dorset
• s2(1) exclusion causes