OLA 57 cases

• The Calgarth per Lord Scrutton


  When you invite a person to your house to use the stairs, you do not invite him to slide down the banister
• Lowery v Walker 


  D was liable. Whilst C did not have expressed permission to be on the land, a license was implied through repeated trespass and D's consent
• McGeown v Northen Ireland Housing Executive 


  D was not liable as C was not a lawful visitor under OLA 57 because she was exercising a public right of way. This is because it would place a burden on landowners to provide footpaths and maintain
• Haseline v Daw


  A lift was considered premises
• Wheeler v Copas


  A ladder can be considered premises
• Ogwu v Taylor 


  A duty of care was owed to a professional fireman. There was no requirement that the risk be exceptional. The defence of volenti had no application.
• Harris v Birkenhead


  A child fell out a second-story house. The council were in control of the property so was liable.
• Wheat v Lacon


  There can be more than one occupier but in this case the landlord was responsible for day to day repairs so liable
• Moloney v Lambeth LBC


  What may pose no threat to adults may be very dangerous to a child
• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor


  Occupiers should guard against allurements
• Simkiss v Rhondda


  The court must have regard to all the circumstances and the occupier is resonably entitled to expect parental control of young children
• Liddle v Yorkshire


  An allurement on its own is not sufficient grounds for liability
• Simkiss v Rhonnda BC


  Where a danger on land is a natural hazard which ought to be obvious to adults, occupiers are entitled to assume that children will be properly supervised
• Roles v Nathan


  D not liable as you would expect chimmney sweeps to guard against this type of risk
• General Cleaning Contractor's v Christmas


  a trdesman may hace a remedy against his employer if the injury is related to an unsafe system of work
• Salmon v Seafarers


  Occupier can be liable even if the visitor posses a special skill
• Bishop v JS


  an oral warning about the danger was not enough
• Coupland v Eagle Brothers


  a written warning was not appropriate because it was not in a place for the visitor to see
• Rae v Mars UK Ltd


  Danger was so great that a warning was not enough
• Staples v West Dorset DC


  Visbile injury is a clear and obvious danger that needed no warning
• Cotton v Derbyshire DC


  Cliff edge was an obvious danger that required no warnings