Evaluation of BOTH

• Evaluation point 1) Justice to both C + D due to two statutes :

  The current legal position where we have two statutes covering the law on Occupiers' Liability provides justice to both claimants and defendants.

  
  

  1957 - The previous common law was confusing so the duty under the 1957 Act is easier to understand and results in a consistent application ensuring a fair outcome.
• Evaluation point 2) Lack of definitions :

  Although there are two Acts of Parliament in this area of law, there is still a lack of definitions.

  
  

  There is no definition of an 'occupier' in either Act, which results in wider interpretation by the courts. For example Wheat v E. Lacon where the courts found a number of occupiers liable.
• Evaluation point 3) Avoid liability :

  An occupier can avoid liability through the use of defences easily under both Acts.

  
  

  1957 - Warning signs or exclusion clauses can be used, therefore this is fair on the occupier because it places responsibility on the lawful visitors. But this will only succeed if sufficient.
• Evaluation point 4) Unfair :

  OLA 1957 is unfair with regard to allurements as there is no statutory definition, meaning it is unclear.

  
  

  Unfair on occupiers with regards to children as there is no definition of an allurement, so it is ultimately open to interpretation.