1984 eval

• ++ 1984 act passed to recognise changes in social/economic position of country, recognises all visitors require same level of protection on back of (british railway board v harrington)
• -- no definition of occupier in act, turn to case law which is confusing
• ++ case law states can be more than one occupier accountable to ensure high standards on premises
• -- some claimants left without a claim as there's no occupier/person in control of property, harsh and unfair
• -- some but not full statutory definition of premises and have to turn to common law, is it too wide, how can a ladder be premises
• -- harsh that occupiers are still held accountable as trespassers shouldn't be there in the first place
• ++ fair that duty is owed to some extent, need to protect public especially if occupier is aware of the danger/people near it
• ++ (ratcliff v mcconnell) fair on occupier, shouldn't be responsible if danger is obvious
• ++ (tomlinson v congleton) reasonable as it was harsh to expect occupiers to spend excessive amount of money to make premises completely safe if shouldn't be there anyway
• ++ (higgs and rhind) fair, how can an occupier be expected to suspect every trespasser or know about every danger, impossible
• -- children still more vulnerable - harsh to treat them same as adults (kneown) should be compensated but lesser amount?
• -- children shouldn't be there in the first place so interests balanced between claimant and defendant
• ++ wide range of defences allowed to protect interests and reduce liability on occupier when it is fair and appropriate to do so
• -- if warning signs aren't always appropriate for children, how can they be safeguarded that wont incur an unreasonable cost on occupier