Occupier's Liability: Persons Other than Visitors Flashcards
Who is an occupier under the 1984 Occupiers Liability Act?
- Anybody who would be considered an occupier under the 1957 Act
Define a trespasser
- Someone who goes onto the land of an occupier without permission. Their presence is either unknown or objected to
What was held in Addie v Dumbreck (1929)?
- There was no duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers. The only duty was not to willfully inflict harm
What case overturned the ruling in Addie v Dumbreck (1929)? How did the House of Lords do this? What was the new ruling? What did this decision eventually lead to?
- BRB v Herrington (1972)
- Used their 1966 practice statement
- A duty of care could be owed to trespassers
- Led to Parliament introducing the Occupiers Liability Act 1984
Under s1(3) of the 1984 Occupiers Liability Act, an occupier owes a statutory duty of care to an unlawful visitor if what two conditions are satisfied?
- They are aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists and
- The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, they may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection
What is the duty owed to persons other than visitors under the 1984 Act?
- To take care as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case to see that they are not injured on the premises by the danger concerned
How does the duty imposed under the 1984 Act differ from that imposed under the 1957 Act?
- 1984:
- To take care as is reasonable to see that the non-visitor is not injured on the premises
- 1957:
- To take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe
What happened in Tomlinson v Borough Council (2003)? What was held?
- Tomlinson ignored warning signs and dived into an artificial lake where swimming and diving were not permitted
- He hit his head on the bottom and broke his neck, leaving him tetraplegic - he brought proceedings against the council
- HELD- he was a visitor but became a trespasser when he entered the water and so any successful claims would have to be under the 1984 Act
- He knew he wasn’t supposed to, and there were blatant warnings so the claim was dismissed
What happened in Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust (2006)?
- 11 year old child fell off a fire escape he had been climbing (from the underside) and suffered a fractured arm and brain injury
- Fire escape was part of hospital grounds and was a known area where children liked to play
- HELD - no breach of duty under the 1984 Act as it was the claimant’s own choice to climb the fire escape
What happened in Siddorn v Patel?
- Claimant sought damages from her landlord for injuries sustained whilst dancing on a garage roof. She had climbed through a window to reach the roof, which was not part of her tenancy, and fell through a perpex skylight
- Claim rejected as the duty of care under the 1984 Act could only arise if the danger was due to the state of the premises and not a claimant’s activity
What happened in Naylor v Payling (2004)?
- Payling suffered sever head injuries in the course of being ejected from a night club by a bouncer
- Defendant owner held to owe a duty to ensure the independent contractor who provided the security was insured, and so was in breach of his duty of care
What happened in Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996)?
- 9 year old fell from a roof
- There was extensive barbed wire blocking access to the roof, but thee 9 year old found a gap
- Occupier held not liable as there was no knowledge of vicinity under the 1984 Act (they didn’t know the kid could get up there as there was extensive fencing)
What happened in Higgs v Foster (2004)?
- Police officer investigating a crime entered the occupier’s premises to carry out surveillance
- He fell into an uncovered pit suffering severe injuries, causing him to retire
- Police officer judged to be a trespasser
- Occupier not liable as even though he knew the hole was dangerous, he could not have anticipated the police officer’s presence
What happened in Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)?
- Claimant dived into water to fetch a football and hit his head on a submerged object
- Occupier not liable as the claimant took an obvious and serious risk by diving in and the occupier had no reasonable grounds to believe that the object was in the water
What happened in Scott v Associated British Ports (2000)?
- Two incidents involving children
- The first one didn’t have a precedent and so the courts decided that the defendant could not have foreseen the accident
- With the second one, the court found that even if the defendant had put up a fence, it would not have prevented the claimant trespassing
