FA06 Q1-3 Model - yyycjv giving sugihibob ifufonpnob ohio icvu. j jig. ovivkv ohio. thanks gigi PDF

Preview

Summary

yyycjv giving sugihibob ifufonpnob ohio icvu. j jig. ovivkv ohio. thanks gigi thanks gib igifuviv giving civic iudibodyycivib for sycobib...

Description

Jack and his House 1) Discuss the rights and remedies, if any, of Sam against Jack in respect of his injuries [7 marks] Sam is entitled to claim under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. First we must prove that Jack is an occupier, which is the person in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon), as he put signs up and hired workers that would prove control. The house would be classed as a premises (s1(3) OLA 57). A limited duty of care is owed to trespassers under S1(1)(a), and Sam is clearly a trespasser as he did not have permission to be there. The Occupiers Liability Act allows for a claim against the occupier if the defendant can prove that the occupier knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the danger existed (S1(3)(a)), that there would be a trespasser on their premises (S1(3)(b)) and if they did not provide reasonable protections (S1(3)(c)). In this scenario, Jack did know that the house was dangerous as he put up danger signs (Ratcliffe v McConnell), and he had reasonable grounds to believe that youths would be on the property as that is why he put up the signs (Tomlinson v Congleton BC). However, he did offer a reasonable amount of protection as he boarded up the windows and doors and the signs were prominent (Platt v Liverpool CC). Therefore it is unlikely that the courts will find Jack liable.

2) Discuss the rights and remedies, if any, of Leo against Jack in respect of his injuries. [9 marks] Leo is entitled to claim under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. First we must prove that Jack is an occupier, for this he must be the person in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon), as he put signs up and hired workers that would prove control. The house would be classed as a premises (s1(3)).

U4 June 2016 Q 7

A common duty of care is owed to visitors under S2(1), in order to keep the visitors reasonable safe (S2(2)) for the purposes for which they are invited (The Calgarth). Leo is clearly a visitor as he was expressly hired (Lowery v Walker). Therefore it is likely that the courts would find Jack liable. However, under S2(3) (b) the occupier is entitled to expect that a person exercising his calling will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to their job (Roles v Nathan), as long as the occupier allows them to do so. As it is normal for a house being rewired to require cables to be stapled to the skirting, and as he was hired to do so in an old house that requires renovating, it is likely there will be old nails in the skirting, the risk therefore is incidental to Leo’s job. As Jack did not prevent Leo from doing his job properly, it is likely that Jack will not be liable.

3) Discuss the rights and remedies, if any, of Ruben against Jack in respect of his injuries. [9 marks]

Ruben is entitled to claim under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. First we must prove that Jack is an occupier, for this he must be the person in control of the premises (Wheat v Lacon), as he put signs up and hired workers that would prove control. The house would be classed as a premises (s1(3)). A common duty of care is owed to visitors under S2(1), in order to keep the visitors reasonable safe (S2(2)) for the purposes for which they are invited (The Calgarth). Ruben is clearly a visitor as he was expressly hired (Lowery v Walker). Therefore it is likely that the courts would find Jack liable for Ruben’s injuries. However S2(4)(b) states that an occupier will be liable for the work of an independent contractor, unless the occupier has ensured that the independent contractor was competent, and if the nature of the work allows, checked the quality of the work. In this scenario, as Jack hired an expert, that would show competence (Gwilliam v West Herts). As the work was on a roof, it would not be reasonable to require Jack to check this (Haseldine v Daw), therefore it is likely that the courts will not find Jack liable for Ruben’s injuries.

U2 June 2015 Q 9-12...