Term
| Keown v Coventry Health Care NHS Trust |
|
Definition
| The claiamant had been 11 years old and had been climbing on an external fire escape. he fell and suffered brain damage. he was trespassing. at first trust was liable but damages reduced for contributory negligence.the trust appealesd arguing that there was nothing about the state of the fire escape whichmade it dangerous. what had caused the risk was the claimant's decision to climb on it. thedanger was not created by the state of the premises or by something the occupier had or had not done. |
|
|
Term
| cases which involve whether there was a "reasonable ground to believe" that a risk exists and that a trspasser will or maybe in the vicinity. |
|
Definition
swain
higgs v foster
scott v associated british ports |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| C was a 9 year old boy who was ijured when he fell through a factory roof where he had been trespassing. his case was that there was reason to believe that childre would climb on the roof and defendants were in breach of their duty in failing to keep the children away. the court of appeal diagreed; there was no evidnece of precious trespass, the factory fences were substantial. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the claiamant polic officer went into the defendants yard looking for a stolen trailer he felll into an uncovered inspectio pt and was injurd. the judge found that although the defendnts knew that the pit was a potentially dangerous ground for trespassers, it couldnot be said that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that a trespasser may come within the vicinity of the danger. |
|
|
Term
| Scotts v Associated British Ports |
|
Definition
| The defenants owned land n which there was a railway line. in seperate accidents, 4 years apart, 2 boys had lost limbs where they had played on the lnand and attempted to get on moving trains. the court held that the dfndants owed no duty under the 1984 act forthe first accident, because they had been unaware of the isk. howver knowledge of the rist acccidnet, along with newspaper coverage and complaints made to them later, meant that they did owe a duty under the act with regard to the second accident. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a trespasser is someoe who goes onto land without any kind of permission and whose presnce there is either not know to the occupier, or, if known, if objected to. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| it is possible to become a trespasser in specific parts of building or land, even though you are legally visitor to the place as a whole. mr tolinson dived into a shallow part of a lake where swimming was forbidden. the house of lords held that his claim should bejudges under the 1984 Act, because althogh he was a visitor to the park, he became a trespasser when he ignored the signs and got into the water. |
|
|
Term
| Standard of care imposed by the the1984 act is supposed to be pitched at a similar level to that which had previouslt existed under the common law. |
|
Definition
| British Railways Board v Herrington |
|
|
Term
| British Railway Board v Herrington |
|
Definition
| The case involved a six year old claiamant ho passed though a gao the fence and was electrocuted on the defendants railway line. the fence had been in need of repair for some time but the stationmaster had done nothing about itm despite the fact that he was both aware that it needed repar and that scjilden had the habit of passing through it. The House of Lords found on these facts that the defendanst were in a breach o the duty they owed to trespasser, known as the duty of "Common humanity" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| C was taking a short cut across the council's land to a car park, when he fel down a 12 foot trench and injured himself. the land was clearly pruvate and surround by a fence and there was no evidence that the council knew i was eing used a short cut to the car park. the court of appeal concluded that this made the claimant a trespasser. according to the provisions in the 1984 act, the council had taken reasonable care in the circumstances so were not liable for his injury |
|
|
Term
| Tomlinson v Congelton Borough Council |
|
Definition
| to be liable under the act the dager on the defendants premises had to be due to the state of the land. The danger was due to the claimant's diving into the water where he had been forbidden. the public utility of the lake was also a relevant consideration here. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The defendant dived into a port in mid winter and hurt himself when he collided into a grid pile. there were no warnings but the defendants had no reason to belive that someone would jump in mid winter. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Allowances are made for children. however the c.o.a confirmed tha a place considered reaosnbaly dsafe for adults iht till be dangerous for a child. where a child decided to take a risk, that secision could not be ignored because that claimant was a child; the key issue whether the child realised the rik. in the case he boy kew hat there was a risk o falling from the fire escape nd kewthat he should not climb on it, so it could not be said that he did not recognise the danger. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| adult claimants are regarded as accepting any risk which they knew about when entering the land. should this prinicple apply to the 1984 act, the defnce of voleni provied greate protection for occupiers with regrd to trespassers, than it does with regard to visitors, where the defence only applies if the visitor knows enogugh to be reaosnably safe. |
|
|
