Occupers Liability 1984 PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes on Occupiers Liability 1984. Notes, cases and legislation...

Description

Occupiers Liability Act 1984 S.1 (1) (a) OLA 1984: This imposes a duty on the occupiers in relation to the persons other than his visitors.This includes trespassers and those who exceed their permission. S.1(8) OLA 1984: Since the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 applies to trespassers, a lower level of protection is offered. Death and personal injury are the only protected forms of damage and occupiers have no duty in relation to the property of trespassers. Also the duty only arises when certain risk factors are present. Demonstrating that D owed a duty of care under OLA 1984: 1. That D was the occupier of the land (S.1 (2) OLA 1984:occupier is given the same meaning as under the 1957 act.(If they have sufficient control over the premises) 2. That a duty of care to the claimant has arisen in consequence of that occupancy. To establish a duty of care the claimant must demonstrate that the claim: ● Passes the threshold of s 1 (1) (Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust 2006) ● And, then apply s 1 (3) of the Act. First Part of the Test - S  1 (1) OLA 1984 ● The danger arises from the state of the premises ● That the risks were not obvious. S1 (3) of the 1984 Act: ● In order to show that Ds duty of care had arisen in the circumstances in question it is necessary to satisfy the 3 requirements: 1. Is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists. 2. He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger or may come to the danger. 3. The risk is one in which in all the circumstances of the case.He may be reasonably expected to offer the other some protection. ● Donoughue v Folkstone Properties LTD 2003

1. The first part of s1(3(a): the occupier was ‘aware of the danger’ appears to be subjective 2. and 1(3)(b): ‘knew…that the other was in the vicinity of the danger’ appears to be subjective 3. The phrase attaching to these subjective criteria: ‘ …or had reasonable grounds to believe…’ appears to be objective in character. Section 1 (3) C ● requires consideration of whether, in all the circumstances, the danger was one against which the occupier would reasonably be expected to offer some protection. The test is an objective one – would a reasonable man provide some protection The criteria in s.1(3) must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in injury to the claimant. A duty of care arises only if the occupier satisfies the following points: ● Awareness of or reasonable grounds of suspect ● Presence of the non-visitor in the vicinity of danger ● Reasonable expectation of protection against the risk. Where the risk is obvious: There is considerable authority to indicate that, where the risk is obvious, the court is likely to find either that there was no duty in respect of that risk or that there was no breach Children: It has long been accepted that what may not be a danger to an adult may nevertheless be a danger to a child. Nevertheless questions of obviousness of risk are important Where threshold test passed and s1(3) applied: The Act will apply in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them (s 1(1)(a)). S1(1)(a) OLA 1984: ‘…injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them…’ .

S 1(4) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984: I f a duty is owed, the court would have to determine whether there had been a breach. The standard of care under this section is the usual negligence one of reasonable care Section 1(4): provides that the occupier’s duty is to ‘…take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that [the non-visitor] does not suffer injury by reason of the danger concerned.’ Whereas the 1957 Act allows an occupier to exclude liability (subject to the provisions set out in UCTA 1977), the 1984 Act does not expressly confer such a right. This may be an oversight by the legislature and it may be possible to exclude liability since it is not expressly forbidden or it may be that the legislature was of the opinion that it should not be possible to exclude liability for the basic level of protection afforded to trespassers.g carelessly when there:...