unlawful visitors

• Traditionally, at common law, what duty of care was owed to a trespasser?

  No duty at all, other than not to deliberately or recklessly inflict injury.
• Where was the rule that an occupier owed a trespasser no duty?

  Addie v Dumbreck
• How did the House of Lords change the law that occupiers owed no duty at all to trespassers?

  Using the 1966 Practice Statement.
• In which case did the House of Lords use the 1966 Practice Statement to change the law that trespassers are owed no duty of care?

  BRB v Herrington
• As a result of the 1975 Law Commission report, what was passed regarding the duty owed to trespassers?

  Occupier's Liability Act 1984 where the duty of "common humanity" was replaced by statutory duty.
• What are the 5 types of trespassers?

  • Someone who is on someone's land without express or implied permission.
  • Someone who "out stays their welcome".
  • Someone who goes to an area that they aren't permitted to be in.
  • Someone who has engaged in activities they are not permitted to do.
  • Someone who refuses to leave when they are told to do so.
• What does s (1)(a) of the 1984 Act state?

  A duty applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors for "injury on the premises by the reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them".
• What does the 1984 Act provide compensation for?

  Personal injuries only.
• What is not covered by compensation in the 1984 Act?

  Damage to property.
• Why is damage to property not covered by compensation in the 1984 Act?

  Trespassers are deserving of less protection than lawful visitors.
• Under s 1(3), when will the occupier only owe a duty?

  • They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
  • They know / have reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of danger / may come into the vicinity of danger.
  • The risk is one against which, in all circumstances of the case, they may be expected to offer the other some protection.
• What is the duty under s (1)(4)?

  To "take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger".
• How is the standard of care owed to trespassers by occupiers objective?

  What is required of the occupier depends on the circumstances of each case, the greater the degree of risk, the more precautions the occupier will have to take.
• What are the factors to be taken into account regarding the duty of care owed to trespassers?

  • The nature of the premises.
  • The degree of danger.
  • The practicality of taking precautions.
  • The age of the trespasser.
• When is there little problem in establishing liability?

  Where an occupier knows of a risk or knows that trespassers are or will come into the vicinity of it.
• What often happens where an occupier knows a risk / knows trespassers will come into the vicinity of it so there is little problem in establishing liability?

  Interpreting what amounts to "reasonable grounds to believe" that a danger exists and "reasonable grounds to believe" that a trespasser is or will come into the vicinity of danger.
• What has the 1984 Act appeared to have given trespassers?

  A right to claim compensation when they have been injured while trespassing.
• What point of law was established in Ratcliff v McConnell?

  The occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by obvious danger.
• In which case was the idea that the occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by obvious danger?

  Ratcliff v McConnell
• What point of law was established in Donoghue v Folkestone Properties?

  The time of day and the time of year when the accident happened will be relevant in deciding whether the occupier owes a duty of care.
• In which case was the idea that an occupier doesn't have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers?

  Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
• What point of law was established in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council?

  An occupier doesn't have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers.
• In which case was the idea that the occupier will not be liable if they had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser?

  Higgs v Foster
• What point of law was established in Higgs v Foster?

  The occupier will not be liable of they had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser.
• In which case was the idea that the occupier will not be liable if they weren't aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect the danger existed?

  Rhind v Astbury Water Park
• What point of law was established in Rhind v Astbury Water Park?

  The occupier will not be liable if they weren't aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect the danger existed.
• What is the duty of care owed to child trespassers?

  The same statutory rules apply to child visitors as for adult visitors. The approach of judges towards claims by child trespassers is the same for adults.
• In which 2 cases was the idea that the same statutory rules apply to child visitors as for adult visitors?

  • Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
  • Baldacchino v West Wittering