36 Questions
What is the primary principle of occupier's liability according to the text?
Liability for injuries on the premises
Before the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, what was the status of the rules of common law?
Remained intact
In Wheat v Lacon (E) & Co Ltd (1966), what was the main outcome regarding the duty of care?
Owners remained in control but did not breach duty of care
What is emphasized about control in occupiers' liability according to Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)?
Legal control is sufficient for liability
What type of visitors does the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 primarily focus on concerning liability?
Lawful visitors only
How does the extent of an occupier's ordinary duty change according to Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)?
It remains constant for all visitors
What is the common duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
To take reasonable care to ensure visitors are safe on the premises
In Ward v The Ritz Hotel London (1992), why was the hotel held liable for an injury?
Because they failed to meet the British standards but it was reasonable
What distinguishes 'occupancy' duty from 'activity' duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
Occupancy duty is related to premises control, while activity duty is regarding actions on the premises
What does section 2(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 state about children on premises?
Occupiers must be prepared for children being less careful than adults
In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (1998), why was the council held liable?
Because the allurements were foreseeable and no precautions were taken
What does section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 pertain to?
Expectation of special risks by skilled visitors in their calling
'Warning of danger' under section 2(4)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 means that:
'Warning' must be supplemented by additional safety measures in extreme cases
'Warning of danger' under section 2(4)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 may not absolve an occupier from liability when:
'Warning' was insufficient for immediate danger situations
'Occupancy' duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 primarily revolves around:
'Control of premises'
What must be done in order for an occupier of premises to owe a duty to a person who is not a visitor?
The occupier must know the person is in the vicinity of the danger and offer protection.
In British Railways Board v Herrington, why was the defendant held liable for a child's injury on electrified railway?
The defendant knew the public was using the gap but did not guard against the danger.
In the case of English Heritage v Taylor (2016), why was the defendant held liable for the claimant's injuries at Carisbrooke Castle?
The danger was not obvious and the occupier failed to take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate it.
What factor determines what is considered reasonable in providing protection against dangers for trespassers?
Difficulty and expense of guarding against the danger.
What principle is reflected in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 regarding the duty of care owed to visitors?
Occupiers must take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are 'reasonably' safe considering all circumstances.
In Ratcliffe v McConnell, why were the occupiers not held liable for the student's injuries at the swimming pool?
The occupiers did everything reasonable in the circumstances to prevent harm.
Under the OLA 1957, when can an occupier escape liability for dangers caused by independent contractors?
If the work done by the independent contractor was reasonably entrusted and properly carried out.
Why was Congleton Borough Council held not liable in Tomlinson v Congleton BC despite a lake accident?
The council had done all it could to prevent accidents and had a 'no swimming policy'.
What legal concept is encompassed in 'volenti non fit injuria' as per the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984?
The assumption of risk voluntarily by the visitor.
What distinguishes warning requirements under OLA 1957 from OLA 1984?
Warning under OLA 1984 absolves liability at a lower standard.
According to Lord Moulton in Addie & Sons Ltd v Dumbreck (1929), what duty does an occupier owe to a trespasser on their premises?
No duty unless the trespasser is harmed due to a wilful act by the occupier.
According to Lord Wilberforce, what factor affects what is considered reasonable in preventing dangers on property?
Means and resources of the occupier only.
In Ratcliffe v McConnell, what prevented the occupiers from being held responsible for the student's injuries at the swimming pool?
'No swimming' policy was habitually disregarded by visitors.
Why did the Court of Appeal (CoA) overturn the trial judge's decision regarding LBS' liability in a specific case?
No evidence was presented that any warning could have prevented the incident.
Why did the House of Lords reverse the decision and hold Congleton Borough Council not liable in Tomlinson v Congleton BC?
'No swimming' policy was not communicated clearly.
What factor is crucial in determining an occupier's liability towards visitors under the OLA 1957?
Reasonableness based on all circumstances and ensuring visitor safety.
'The court is required to consider all circumstances.' This statement is particularly relevant in cases involving what legal concept?
'Voluntary assumption of risk' under common law negligence.
Why did Congleton Borough Council avoid liability in Tomlinson v Congleton BC?
Council took comprehensive measures but faced public disregard.
'Occupiers must take reasonable steps.' Which case exemplifies this requirement under the OLA 1957?
English Heritage v Taylor (2016).
What is the key difference between strict liability provisions under OLA 1984 and negligence principles under common law regarding occupiers' duties?
Strict liability applies regardless of fault, while negligence requires proof of fault.
Why did the court find The Mayor of Hastings liable in Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings (1945) despite arguing that cleaning had been outsourced?
The cleaner had intentionally left a dangerous condition on the premises.
Learn about the principles of occupier's liability, where the occupier of land or premises can be held liable for injuries sustained on the property. Explore the transition from the case of D v S to the two key acts: Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
