OLA Exam Question for Consolidation Week PDF

Preview

Summary

Download OLA Exam Question for Consolidation Week PDF

Description

The local hospital, St Jude’s, has decided to have an Open Day for the community to be able to visit the hospital and look around. It is also hoped that it will also work as a fund raising day for the hospital. Various stalls and rides have been set up in the hospital grounds to try to raise money for more incubators. The hospital grounds are substantial as it is contained within an old stately home, and there are 3 lakes within the grounds. You work as a legal advisor for the hospital and a number of incidents occurred during the Open Day and you are asked to advise in relation to these. Mr and Mrs Jennings decide to take their children to the Open Day. It is a hot day and Mr Jennings decides to go swimming in one of the lakes. There are a number of signs indicating that swimming in the lakes is not allowed. Mr Jennings ignores these signs. He struggles as the lake is deeper than he had thought and he drowns in the lake. Mrs Jennings states that there are no warning signs to state that swimming is dangerous. Mrs Jennings has indicated that she will want to bring a claim against the hospital. Molly pays money to go on a bungee jump, but there is a problem with the cord. It does not break but it does not work as it should and she suffers a broken leg. Molly has tried to make a claim against the contractor, Bill’s Bungees, but they have no insurance and have gone bust. Molly has indicated that she will pursue her claim for damages against the hospital instead. Ed and Charlie are also tempted to swim in the lakes as it is such a hot day. They decide to dive into the smallest lake. Unfortunately there is an abandoned shopping trolley at the bottom of the lake which is covered in mud. Ed does not see this and hits his head on this and sustains spinal injuries. Ed wishes to claim damages for these injuries. Charlie tries to get help for Ed, and goes into the hospital reception, and falls over a pile of boxes that have been left in the corridor. As the legal representative of the hospital advise whether Mrs Jennings, Molly, Ed and Charlie are likely to succeed in their claims under the Occupier’s Liability Acts 1957 and 1984.

     



Concession – agree a point – agreed a point with the claimant 1st Claimant – Mr/Mrs Jennings 2nd Claimant – Molly 3rd Claimant – ED 4th Claimant – Charlie Defendant – St Jude’s, The hospital o Occupier could be somebody who was present and occupying the land o Wheat v Lacon, Harris v Brikenhead ( do not need to be in actual occupation ) Mr Jennings o Is he a visitor  Yes – they have opened theyre dorrs to the public

If he is a visitor then OLA 1957 applies S.(1) the visitor is protected if something is wron with the premesis or the activity the claimant is doing  What is the duty that is actualy owed s.2(1)  S.2(2) – take care in all the circumstances – negligence test  What’s the likelihood something will happen  If something will happen how serious is it  What’s the cost of prevention o Costly to drain the lake  What’s the social utility/ public interest Warning sign  Is it on e  If you give a visitor a warning it needs to keep them safe  No swimming is not a sufficient enough sign it is not a warning sign  There is no duty to warn against obvious risk  Risk is drowning  Court said no obligation to put a sign to say that they could drown  The risk of drowning is obvious Does he have permission to be in the lake  No – could be a trespasser  Calgarth – can give persmission into house but cant slide doen the bannister Conclusion  Have they taken reasonable care  Cost of fencing off beauty spot likely to be high  No obligation to warn of an obvious risk Is he a Trespasser  You need permission to be there either express or implied  The moment he went into the lake he became a trespassr ( Tomlinson)  1984  Owe a duty to people who aren’t visitors  Keown v Coventry NHS Trust – danger was due to activity not the state of the premises  Ratcliff v McConnel  Nothing wron with the swimming pool but the activity was dangerous  S.1(3)(a-c)  Have to apply them individually  A – does the defendant know the danger exist or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists o Whats the danger the lake or the swimming  The activity is dangerous  Failed in relation to s.1(3)(a)  B- knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger or that he may come into the vicinity  Unlikey to have a claim as a trespasses 1957 – duty not breached No duty to warn about obvious risk  

o

o

o

o

o o





   



o 1984- activity dangerous Molly o Independent contractors  Under 1957 S.2(4)(b)  Can only escape what has happened  Have to show o It is reasonable to entrust a independent contractor o Reasonable care to ensure competent o Conclusion  Did they ask if they had insurance  If not they will be liable  If they did and were told yes ( Gwilliam) then should they have asked to see certificate  Is this a hazardous activity as indicated in Bottomley  Yes so they should have asked for a copy of the certificate  BuSt Judes will be liable ED o S.1(3)(a)  He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists  It was hidden to ed and the hospital  It is a subjective test  They were not aare of the danger o B  Did they know trespassers will be in the vicinity

Parents cant really expect others to take care of their children Causation o Causation could be relavant Volenti Exturpi cause o Normally applies to a trespasser not a visitor o Only applies to situation when someones commiting a burglary Contributary negligence – it is a partial defence o The only person that can be is the Claimaint even if it is the child o Do not say the claimaint is contributory negligent and then the parents will be responsible...