Occupiers Liability Problem Question PDF

Preview

Summary

‘Camden Cool’, an after-school youth club run by the local authority, is holding an open day to raise funds for the club. One of the main attractions is a large bouncy castle supplied, erected and supervised by Elsinore Castles, a small local company. Joseph and Harry are the first to try it out. Th...

Description

‘Camden Cool’, an after-school youth club run by the local authority, is holding an open day to raise funds for the club. One of the main attractions is a large bouncy castle supplied, erected and supervised by Elsinore Castles, a small local company. Joseph and Harry are the first to try it out. They both suffer minor cuts and bruises when the castle breaks free from its moorings and lifts into the air. It later turns out that it had not been appropriately tethered to the ground. Unfortunately, despite assuring Jake, the club’s youth worker, when he phoned to book the castle, that they had the necessary documentation, Elsinore’s public liability insurance had expired two months before the accident. In the chaos that follows, Iris (Joseph’s sister) wanders off alone. She is too young to be a member of the club and so doesn’t know her way around the buildings. She is seriously injured when she falls down a flight of stairs after going through a door marked ‘Private: No Unauthorised Entry’. Meanwhile Frank and Bill (who are members of the club) have sneaked off to play football. After a particularly poor shot at goal their ball lands on a flat roof. Although they know the roof is ‘out of bounds’, as everyone is busy at the open day, they decide to climb onto the roof to retrieve it. As they do so one of the skylights breaks. Bill falls through the roof hitting his head hard, causing him to lose his hearing. Advise the parties of any claims they may have under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984.

1975 Act o Section 1 (2): both ‘Camden Cook’ youth club owners and Elsinore Castles are occupiers for the purposes of the 1975 Act- both owned a duty of care to the visitors involved in this case- Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd 1966  Case shows the occupier need not to have actual physical possession of the premises o Parties involved are: Joseph, Harry, Iris, Frank and Bill- Besides Iris, the 4 boys are all members of the club- they have been given expressed permission to enter or use the premise  However, by limiting the extent of the permission they give to a visitor, an occupier can restrict the duty of care they owe to them  Frank and Bill- ‘out of bounds’ premise- If a visitor goes beyond what they have been invited or given permission to do at that point, and to that extent, they will cease to be treated as a visitor and so will fall outside the provisions of the 1957 Act  Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospital 2017: A person’s state of mind and intention in becoming a trespasser is importantboth Frank and Bill were aware that the premise was out of bound yet choose to enter regardless o Standard of care: ‘care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited’ o Joseph and Harry: the bouncy castle was not properly tethered to the ground  The youth club and Elsinore Castle ought to have appreciated risks and taken steps to prevent possible risks- Pollock v Cahill 2015  Whether the accident was something that was the fault of the occupier can be determined by applying the basic principles of the common law of negligence o Warnings:

o Frank and Bill: Where the danger is obvious there is usually no need to give a warning- climbing the roof gives an indication of an obvious cause of danger  Staples v West Dorset District Council 1995 - Children invited onto the premiss are owed a common duty of care like all other visitors o Allurement is necessary in establishing the foreseeability of the children climbing onto the boat- Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council 2000 o Bill and Frank: the roof of the building is not necessarily considered an allurement- not reasonably foreseeable that the children will climb the roof - Faulty execution of work: o Joseph and Harry: where an accident is the result of a subcontractors work on the premises the occupier will not be liable if in all circumstances, they had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor  The youth club will not be liable for the injuries caused from the bouncy castle as they relied on EC to supervise, build and assure safety of the bouncy castle 1984 Act: - This deals with people other than visitors - Iris was not a member of the club - Under this Act, the occupier owes a duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances to see the persons ‘other than his visitors’ do not suffer injury as a result of danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them’ s 1(1) - Iris is not considered a trespasser in this case as she is too young to be part of the club yet is given permission to be on the premised as Joseph’s sister - Test: o (1) that the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists; and  Aware of the risk of stairs and provides a warning to prove they had reasonable grounds to believe that it exists o (2) the occupier knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is, or may come, in the vicinity of the danger (whether or not they have lawful authority to do so); and o (3) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.  Simonds v Isle of Wight Council 2004: the courts argued the school was liable as they were under the responsibility to discourage students from playing on the swings-in the same way, the youth club were responsible in keeping an eye on Iris as a young individual present in the premises  - Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council o Iris: warning given



 

A warning will only be sufficient to discharge an occupier’s duty to a particular visitor if in all circumstances it is enough to enable that the visitor is reasonably safe Warning has to be obvious which in this case it was However, you cannot reasonably expect Iris to read the notice

Revision: - The occupier of the premise may be liable if they have not taken reasonable care to ensure that those entering the premise are safe - 1957 Act: covers lawful visitors - 1984 Act: covers unlawful visitors 1957: -

All lawful entrants should be owned the same common duty of care If injury is suffered outside their premises, then there can be no claim on the basis of occupier’s liability An occupier owns a common duty of care to all lawful visitors who suffer injury on their premises Occupier is anyone who has, or is able to exercise, a sufficient degree of control over the premise (s 1(2)) Occupier only owes duty of care under the 1957 Act where they have been invited to or given permission to use the premises Occupier owes a positive duty of act to take ‘care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited’...