unlawful visitors / trespassers and the 1984 act

• what does section 1(3) of the occupier's liability act 1984 say?

  An occupier of a premises owes a duty to another, not being his visitor.
• which section of what legislation states that An occupier of a premises owes a duty to another, not being his visitor?

  Section 1(3) of the occupier's liability act 1984
• A tresspasser is someone who:

  • Who doesnt have permission to be in the premises
  • a lawful visitor who has gone beyond their permission to be on the premises- tomlinson v congleton borough council
• According to section 1 ( 1 ) ( A ) of the 1984 act, the occupier will be liable for the personal injury, or death of a trespasser due to the state of the premises or things done/omitted to be done on them.
• The occupier will only owe a duty to the trespasser under section 1 ( 3 ) of the Occupiers ' Liability act 1984 if:

  1. the O is aware of the danger or they have reasonable grounds to believe it exists
  2. The O knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that they might come into the vicinity of the danger.
• what is the significance of the case of Swain v Natui Ram Puri?

  It shows that 'reasonable grounds to believe' does not mean 'ought to have been aware'.
• which case shows that 'reasonable grounds to believe' does not mean 'ought to have been aware' ?

  Swain v Natui ram puri
• what does section 1 ( 4) Of the occupier's liability act 1984 say?

  The occupier has a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances t see that the tresspasser isn't injured by the reason of the danger.
• what sectionn of which legislation states that The occupier has a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances t see that the tresspasser isn't injured by the reason of the danger?

  Section 1 ( 4 ) of the occupier's liability act 1984
• The danger that is referred to in the occupoiers liability act 1984 is the thing that causes injury, or the area of lands or part of the building on which the tresspasser is injured. this act is not concerned with risks due to anything other that this danger.
• The standard of care that the occupier has for the trespasser is objective. what is required of the O depends on the circumstances of each case- for example, the following must be considered:

  1. Nature of the premises
  2. degree of the danger
  3. practicality of takling oprecaustions
  4. age of the trespasser,.
• what is the significance of ratcliff v mcconnell?

  It shows that the occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by an obvious danger.
• Which case shows that the occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by an obvious danger?

  Ratcliff v Mcconnell
• what is thge significance of the case of donoghue v folkstone properties?

  It shows that the time of day,. and time of year, when the accident happened can be relevant for deciding whether the occupier owes a duty of care.
• Which case shows that the time of day,. and time of year, when the accident happened can be relevant for deciding whether the occupier owes a duty of care?

  Donoghue v Folkstone properties
• what is the signifiance of the case of higgs v foster?

  It shows that an occupier will not be liable if they had no reason to suspect the presence of an occupier.
• Which case shows that an occupier will not be liable if they had no reason to suspect the presence of an occupier?

  Higgs v Foster
• what is the significasnce of the case of Rhind v Astbury Water park?

  It shows how the occupier will not be liable if they were not aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect that danger existed.
• Which case shows how the occupier will not be liable if they were not aware of the danger or had no reason to suspect that danger existed?

  Rhind v Astbury water park
• What does section 1 ( 8 ) of the occupier's liability act 194 say?

  The occupier will not be liable for any property damage suffered by the trespasser.
• what section of what legislation states that The occupier will not be liable for any property damage suffered by the trespasser?

  Section 1 ( 8 ) of the occupier's liability act 1984
• what does section 1(5) of the occupier's liability act 1984 say?

  This section provides that the occupier can discharge their duty to the trespasser by giving them a warning of the danger, or in some way discouraging the from taking the risk.
• WHich section of what legislation section provides that the occupier can discharge their duty to the trespasser by giving them a warning of the danger, or in some way discouraging the from taking the risk?

  Section 1 ( 5 ) of the occupier's liability act 1984
• What is the significance of the case of Westwood v the post office?

  It shows how the occupier of the property can discharge their duty to trespassers by giving them a warning or somehow discouraging them from taking the risk.
• What case shows how the occupier of the property can discharge their duty to trespassers by giving them a warning or somehow discouraging them from taking the risk?

  Westwood v the post office
• what is the significance of the case of Keown v Coventry healthcare NHS trust?

  It is an example of where there was no danger due to the state of the premises.
• which case is an example of where there was no danger due to the state of the premises?

  Keown v Coventry Healhcare NHS trust