Cases on occupiers liability PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases on occupiers liability Lowery v Walker AC 10 House of Lords The Claimant was injured a horse when using a short cut across the field. The land had been habitually used as a short cut members of the public for many years and the defendant had taken no steps to prevent people coming on to the la...

Description

Cases on occupiers liability Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10

House of Lords

The Claimant was injured by a horse when using a short cut across the defendant’s field. The land had been habitually used as a short cut by members of the public for many years and the defendant had taken no steps to prevent people coming on to the land. The defendant was aware that the horse was dangerous. The defendant was liable. Whilst the claimant did not have express permission to be on the land, a licence was implied through repeated trespass and the defendant’s acquiescence. 

Edwards v Railway Executive [1952]

   

A fence was continually repaired by the defendant; trespassers continually broke through the fence Some trespassers were injured while tobogganing Could the defendant be held liable? No No implied licence where attempts to repair continually

The Defendant had taken reasonable steps to prevent people coming onto the railway.

The claimant was killed in falling down a staircase  The banister ended 3 steps higher than the base 

Wheat v E Lacon



[1966]





   





HAR RI S V BI RKE NH EA D COR PO RAT IO N: CA 1 2

of the staircase There was no light bulb at the top of the staircase The ground floor was occupied by the defendant company, who ran in at a restaurant The first floor was licensed by a third party to the claim, who had provided accommodation to the claimant at the time of his death Could the defendant owner be liable? Who was the occupier of the staircase? No liability, both the third party and the owner were occupiers Anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over the location of injury may be classed as an occupier While the defendant was responsible for the structural maintenance of the house, ie the banister, the third party was responsible for the light bulb There was no liability as the light bulb was likely removed by an unauthorised stranger shortly before the incident; the defendant could not have been expected to know of the danger

A four year old child had fallen from a second-story window in a derelict house owned by the defendant, and suffered serious injury. The house and others had been purchased by compulsion for

NOV 19 75

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL V LEWIS PIERCE

intended clearance. The Corporation appealed against a finding of liability. Held: For the purposes of the Act the Corporation, having the immediate right of control of the property, became its occupier as soon as a tenant had left. An occupier has a duty to protect infants from a danger of trespassing. The Council knew the property was empty. They had control of it and they had done nothing about providing any such protection. The Respondent was a nine year old boy who was injured at a school run by the Appellant. The Respondent had attempted to punch his brother but had missed and punched a water fountain, lacerating his thumb and damaging the tendons in his hand. At first instance the trial judge had found that the Appellant was liable for the injury under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 because they had not considered the risk presented to children by the water fountain and it was foreseeable that the fountain could cause injury. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The question a judge had to ask themselves, when considering s.2 OLA 1957, was whether visitors to the school were reasonable safe when using the premises. There was no evidence to suggest that the water fountain was unsafe. It did not have sharp edges but even if the edges had been sharp it could not be said to constitute a danger to children. The duty under the OLA did not require a school to safeguard children from harm in all circumstances.

Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 House of Lords

The claimant worked in the defendant's factory and slipped up on the factory floor. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather conditions. The defendant's had put up warning signs mopped up and placed sawdust in the most used places to make it as safe as possible. The trial judge held that there had been a breach

of duty as the defendants should have closed the factory if it was unnsafe. However, no argument had been advanced on this.

Held: There was no breach of duty. There was no duty to close the factory. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory.

WARD V THE RITZ HOTEL

Cunningham v reading football 1992

Plaintifff injured when he fell over a balcony in the defendants hotel. The balustrade was six inches lower than the standard. They were held liable under ola 1957 as they should have take the precautions. Police officers on duty at football match were injured by the hooligans who broke off the officers. As the concrete could easily be prised up and similar incident had happened 4 months ago risk by visitors was forseeable and they were liable

Ogwo v Taylor [1987] 3 WLR 1145 House of Lords

The Defendant attempted to burn off paint from the fascia boards beneath the eaves of his house with a blow lamp and in so doing set fire to the premises. The fire brigade were called and the Claimant, an acting leading fireman, and a colleague entered the house wearing breathing apparatus and the usual fireman's protective clothing and armed with a hose. The two firemen were able, with the aid of a stepladder, to squeeze through a small hatch to get into the roof space. The heat within the roof space was intense. The Claimant suffered serious burn injuries to his upper body and face from scalding steam which must have penetrated his protective clothing. Held: 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 applicat

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of Lords

The defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public. On the park various botanic plants and shrubs grew. A boy of seven years ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The berries were poisonous and the boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held:

Glasgow Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered.

Two 14 year old boys found an abandoned boat on land owned by the council and decided to do it up. The boat was in a thoroughly rotten condition and represented a danger. The council had stuck a notice on the boat warning not to touch the boat and that if the owner did not claim the boat within 7 days it would be taken away. The council never took it away. The boys had been working on the boat for 6-7 weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him. The boys had jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The trial judge found for the claimant. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that whilst it was foreseeable that younger children may play on the boat and suffer an injury by falling through the rotten wood, it was not foreseeable that older boys would try to do the boat up. The claimant appealed. House of Lords held: The claimant's appeal was allowed. The risk was that children would

"meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury" The actual injury fell within that description.

It was reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450

A 5 year old boy was walking across some open ground with his 7 year old sister. He was not accompanied by an adult. He was injured when he fell into a trench. The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe.



Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council [1983] ROLES V NATHAN

   

A father left his two young children at the base of a bank of earth The children climbed, and fell, down the bank Could the council be held liable? No Accompaniment is to be expected

No liability to an occupier in the death of two chimney sweeps who died while cleaning a chimney after refusing to heed warnings of carbon monoxide presence.

Defendant had discharged his duty under ola 1957 by warning them of the risks Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] EWCA Civ 30 Court of Appeal

the claimant fractured his hip when he slipped and fell off a harbour wall. The harbour wall was known as The Cobb and was a well-known tourist attraction commonly used as a promenade. The edge of The Cobb was

covered with algae and extremely slippery when wet. The claimant had crouched in the area affected by the algae to take a photo of his friends, when he slipped and fell off a 20 foot drop landing on rocks below. He brought an action based on the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 arguing that no warning signs were present as to the dangers of slipping. Held: The dangers of slipping on wet algae on a sloping harbour wall were obvious and known to the claimant. Therefore there was no duty to warn.

A lift fell to the bottom of a lift shaft, with the claimant still inside of it  Could the occupier be held liable?  No  The contractor was fully liable, the occupier had satisfied the requirements imposed by s 2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act 

Hazeldine v Daw [1941]

Defendant had discharged his duty by employing a competent firm of engineers to make periodical inspections of the lifts

A school was relocated during war-time.  A child slipped on a step, as snow had been left on it by a cleaner  Could the occupier be liable? 

Woodward v Mayor of



Hastings [1945] Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1041 Court of Appeal

YesHadn’t checked that contractor had completed work satisfactorily

Injury of a visitor on a splat wall provided by a contractor without insurance The Hospital owed a duty of care Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 this duty did extend to checking whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent. However, there was no breach of duty since the Hospital had enquired and had been told by Club Entertainment that they had insurance cover. There was no duty to inspect the insurance documents to ensure that cover was adequate.



Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]



  





Congleton BC were the occupiers of a lake surrounded by small beaches. Swimming was prohibited. Tomlinson dived into the water, where he hit some sand and suffered catastrophic person injuries Could the Council be held liable? No The damage was not due to the state of the premises, but to a reckless act of the claimant Neither under the 1957 Act nor the 1984 Act could the authority have owed a duty Allowing liability would have significantly

diminished the social value of the lake area OLA 1957 provides no liability for risk willingly accepted by the visitor

Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 House of Lords

The defendant owned View Park Colliery which was situated in a field adjacent to a road. There was a fence around the perimeter of the field although there were large gaps in the fence. The field was frequently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a playground. The defendant would often warn people off the land but the attempts were not effective and no real attempt was made to ensure that people did not come onto the land. A child came on to the land and was killed when he climbed onto a piece of haulage apparatus. Held: No duty of care was owed to trespassers to ensure that they were safe when coming onto the land. The only duty was not to inflict harm wilfully. A trespasser, the claimant, was electrocuted by the defendant’s railway line  The trespasser entered the property through a fence which had been previously pushed down as a shortcut to a park  The defendant knew of 

Herrington v British Railways Board [1972]

the fence defect  Could the trespasser recover as they were injured on the property which the defendant had control over  Yes, claim successful  The House of Lords was entitled to overrule itself after the 1966 practice statement, therefore this case overruled R Addie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929].  A humanitarian attitude is expected towards trespassers, however there is only a requirement to take reasonable steps to allow a trespasser to avoid risks. The claimant was a 6 year old child.  The result would now be the same under the Occupiers’ Li ability Act 1984. duty of common humanity to trespassers.

RAT CLI FF V G R MC CO NN ELL A ND E W JO NES : CA 30 N OV 19 98

Keown v

A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. The existence of a duty had to be determined by reference to the likelihood of the trespasser’s presence in the vicinity of the danger at the actual time and place of danger to him.

No liability where a child climbed up a fire escape and then fell; intentional act and no knowledge of

defendant.

Coventry NHS [2005]...