1957 eval

• -- no definition of occupier in act, turn to case law which is confusing
• ++ case law states can be more than one occupier, holding people accountable to ensure high standards on premises
• ++ duty to children fair - more vulnerable and less mature so extra protection required
• ++ duty of care for adults is fair, should expect occupiers to ensure visitors are reasonably safe (kiapasha)
• -- what age to no longer supervise child (phipps) different levels of maturity and intelligence at different stages, not comparable, uncertain
• ++ fair balance of interests because it can be expected that accidents do happen (dean)
• -- some claimants left without claim as there's no occupier/person in control of property - harsh, unfair
• -- there's some but not full statutory definition of premises, have to turn to common law, too wide? how can a ladder be a premises?
• ++ recognises changes in social/economic position of country, recognises all visitors require some level of protection, good for public safety standards
• ++ decision in (jolley) fair on occupier as would be harsh to hold them accountable for injury not reasonably foreseeable
• -- reasonably foreseeable is a subjective term, jury may interpret differently, inconsistent outcomes, leaves children without claims, if there are allurements does it matter how child is injured (jolley)
• ++ fair to expect tradesmen to guard against risks incidental to their job (roles v nathan), experts with training - law for independent contractors fair, defence for occupier
• -- is it burdensome for occupier to check work done if they've entrusted someone suitable, another expense (woodward)
• ++ defences good, unfair to hold occupier fully accountable in some situations
• -- law surrounding exclusion clauses confusing