lawful visitors and the 1957 act :)

• what does section 2(1) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 say?

  liability for death or personal injury can never be excluded
• What legislation and section states that liability for death or personal injury will never be excluded?

  Section 2(1) of the unfair contract terms act 1977
• What does section 2(2) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 say?

  it states that liability for damage to property or financial loss can be excluded if it is reasonable in the circumstances.
• What section of what legislation states that that liability for damage to property or financial loss can be excluded if it is reasonable in the circumstances.?

  Section 2(2) of the unfair contract terms act 1977
• what is the significance of section 2(5) of the occupier's liability act 1957?

  It allows the occupier to plead the defenses of consent and contributory negligence.
• what section of the occupier's liability act 1957 states that the occupier can plead consent and contributory negligence as defences?

  Section 2(5)
• What is the significance of section 2(6) of the occupier's liability act 1957?

  it states that people who enter premises in accordance with a legal right are considered to have the occupier's permission to be there, even if they don't have it in fact. This includes people like police officers, firefighters, and utility workers who have a right to enter property regardless of the occupier's wishes.
• What section of the occupier's liability act 1957 states that people who enter premises in accordance with a legal right are considered to have the occupier's permission to be there?

  Section 2(6)
• What cases shows how an obvious danger doesnt warrant a warning?

  Staples v West Dorset District Council

  Darby v National Trust
• what case defines what an occupier is?

  Wheat v E Lacon and co
• According to wheat v e lacon and co, what is an occupier?

  The person or people who are in control of the premises
• What is the significance of the case of harris v birkhenhead corporation?

  It shows how a local council can be the legal occupiers of land
• which case shows how a local council can be the legal occupiers of land?

  Harris v birkhenhead corporaion
• What is the significance of the case of bailey v armes?

  It shows how there can be no legal occupiers of a property
• which case shows how there can be no legal occupiers of a property?

  Bailey v Armes
• what are examples of lawful adult visitors?

  1. Invitees- people who have express permission to be in the premises
  2. Licensees- people who have express or implied for a particular purpose and period
  3. people with contractual permissions
  4. those given a statutory right of entry
• what is the significance of the Calgarth 1927 case?

  It shows how, when a lawful visitor exceeds the permissions they have for being on the premises, they may become a trespasser.
• which case shows how, when a lawful visitor exceeds the permissions they have for being on the premises, they may become a trespasser?

  the Calgarth 1927
• what does section 2(2) of the occupier's liability act 1957 say?

  The occupier has a duty of care over all legal visitors, which means that the occupier needs to take actions that are reasonable to ensure that a visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited.
• What section of what legislation states that The occupier has a duty of care over all legal visitors, which means that the occupier needs to take actions that are reasonable to ensure that a visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited. ?

  Section 2 ( 2 ) of the occupier's liability act 1957
• what is the significance of the case of laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme?

  It shows how the occupier needs to do what is needed to keep a visitor reasonably safe, and it is not necessary to guarantee the visitor's safety.
• which case shows how the occupier needs to do what is needed to keep a visitor reasonably safe, and it is not necessary to guarantee the visitor's safety?

  laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
• The two rules of law that arose from dean and chapter of Rochester cathedreal v debell are:

  • Tripping, slipping, and falling are everyday occurrences; the obligation on an occupier is to make the premises reasonably safe for visitors, not to guarantee their safety.
  • A visitor will be reasonably safe even if there may be visible minor defects which carry a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing an accident and/or injury.
• What does section 2 (3) A Of the occupiers liabviltiy act 1957 say?

  Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child.
• what section of which legislation states that "Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child." ?

  Section 2 (3) (A) of the occupier's liability act 1957
• what is the significance of the case of Glasgow corporation v Taylor?

  It shows how the occupier should guard against any kind of allurment or attraction which places a child visitor at risk
• which case shows how the occupier should guard against any kind of allurment or attraction which places a child visitor at risk?

  Glasgow corporation v Taylor
• According to Glasgow corporation v taylor, what is an allurment?

  Something on the premises that may be attractive to children and which may cause them inujury
• what case defines an allurement as "something on the premises that may be attractive to children and which may cause them injury." ?

  Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
• what is the significance of the case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation?

  Young children should be under the supervision of a parent or another adult
• which case shows how Young children should be under the supervision of a parent or another adult?

  Phipps v Rochester corporation
• what is the significance of the case of Jolley v London Borough of Sutton?

  It shows that if an allurement exists, then there will be no liability on the ocupeir if the damage or injury suffered isn't foreseeable.
• Which case shows that if an allurement exists, then there will be no liability on the ocupeir if the damage or injury suffered isn't foreseeable?

  Jolley v London Borough of Sutton
• what does section 2 (3) (B) of the Occupiers ' Liability act 1957 say?

  An occupier can expect that a tradesperson while they carry out their work they will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leaves them free to do so.
• what section of what legislation states that "An occupier can expect that a tradesperson while they carry out their work they will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leaves them free to do so."?

  Section 2 (3) (B) of the occupier's liability act 1957
• what is the significance of the case of roles v nathan?

  It shows how an occupier will not be liable if a worker doesn't guard against risks that they should know about or be expected to know about.
• Which case shows how an occupier will not be liable if a worker doesn't guard against risks that they should know about or be expected to know about?

  Roles v Nathan
• If a lawful visitor is injured by the negligent work of a workman engaged by the occupier, the occupier may have a defence and be able to pass the claim onto the workman- this is set out by section 2 ( 4 ) ( B ) of the Occupier's liability act 1957:

  1. It must be reasonable for the occupier to have subcontracted the work, the more complicated and specialist the work, the more reasonable it would be to subcontract the work- Hazeldine v Daw and Son LTD
  2. The contractor must be competent to carry ou the task, and as such the occupier must check the contractor's insurance as a lack of insurance suggests a lack of competence- bottomley v Todmorden cricket club
  3. The occuper must check if the work has been done properly- Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
• What is the significance of the case of Ferguson v Welsh?

  It shows that an occupier will not be liable for the unsafeness of the work done by a contractor if it wasn't reasonable for the occupier to supervise it.
• which case shows that an occupier will not be liable for the unsafeness of the work done by a contractor if it wasn't reasonable for the occupier to supervise it?

  Ferguson v Welsh