OCCUPIERS LIABILITY

• Occupiers liability Act 1957 deals with: visitors
• Occupiers liability act 1984 deals with: trespassers
• Wheat v Lacon: Defines the occupier as “a person who exercises an element of control over property“
• Harris v birkinhead corp: council had legal control over property with a compulsory purchase despite not yet having physical control of the property yet.
• AMF V Magnet bowling: contractor had physical control of the property as it was a large scale redevelopment.
• s. 1 (2) defines a visitor as “someone who the occupier invites (Expressed permission) or gives permission to (implied permission) enter.”
• If the expressed permission is exceeded: The Calgarth “when you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannister”
• lowery v Walker: knowing the existence of trespassers without limiting their actions or stopping them meant implied permission. when the horse attacked the claimant using a shortcut to the station.
• Stone v Taffel: implied permission the pub allowed him to stay until 1am despite its licence allowing 10:30, which he was not aware/responsible of, he had implied permission when he fell down the stairs and died
• S.1 (3) defines “premises“ as “any fixed or unmovable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft”
• s.2(2) defines the common duty of care as “to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited“
• Reffel v Surrey cc : the policy to replace the weak glass upon breakage was unreasonable as it did not ensure the safety of the school girl who put her hand through the glass.
• laverton v kiapasha takeaway: installing slip resistant tiles were deemed reasonable enough care required for S.2(2) of the 1957 Act
• Rochester cathedral v debell (2016) clarified that S.2(2) does not need to guard against “every day occurrences“ like slipping or falling.
• Modification for common duty of care for children is S. 2(3)(a)
• Phipps v rochester: the parent on the 5 year old child should have insured reasonable safety by supervising him, resulting in him falling down a trench in a building development.
• Glasgow corp v Taylor: the council should have assured the reasonable safety of the child by providing a warning for poisonous berries that are shiny and enticing to a child.
• Pearson V Coleman brothers: circus should have taken reasonable care to assure the safety of the girl who was mauled by the lion, that was not cordoned off, when she wandered off to go the toilet.
• Titchener v BRB: however age does take into account, a 15 year old was deemed knowing that walking on train tracks are dangerous.
• skilled visitors are expected In S.2(3) (b) that “an occupier may expect that person in the exercise of his calling appreciate and guard against special risks”
• Roles v Nathan- the brothers were given verbal warning to not work as the flue had high carbon monoxide levels, they Ignored it and continued working dying of carbon monoxide poisoning.
• Salmon v seafarer restaurant: the firefighter although knowing how to fight fire was always at risk for his job making the fish and chip owner liable since he negligently left the chip fryer on.