Term
| Wheat v. Lacon [1966] AC 552 |
|
Definition
Facts - The claimant and family were staying in a pub. The husband fell down stair and died. There was no lightbulb, steep narrow stairs.
Issue- Was occupier liable. And who is the occupier as the pub was rented to the Richardsons (pub managers) by the brewery Lacon.
Decision- Can be possible to have two or more occupiers- no physical possession is needed.
Held - Lacon was not in breach of duty of care as changing the lightbulb was due to day to day management. The claimant was unsuccessful against Lacon. |
|
|
Term
| Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671 |
|
Definition
Facts - Toddler died in a pond.
Issue - Is the occupier liable, did they need to take precautions against such a risk?
Decision - No.
Held - Occupier not under duty to take precautions against such obvious risks as they were noted in the "welcome pack" given to the family. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts- Holden a milk man was injured on defendants broken manhole cover. Holden was delivering milk to a third party while he was injured. He was exercising his right of way on defendants land.
Issue - Is Holden a visitor? If so is occupier liable?
Decision -No.
Held - as holden was exercising his right of way, he was not a legal visitor of White. As such no duty of care was needed. (NOTE THIS WAS PRE OLA '84, using the common law - which was harsher) |
|
|
Term
| Jolley v. Sutton London BC [2000] 3 All ER 409 |
|
Definition
Facts- The council left a derelict boat unattended. Children played on the boat. Boat fell and injured a child.
Issue - is the council liable?
Decision - Yes
Held - as to s2 (3) (a) OLA '57 - Occupier must be prepared that children will be less careful than adults. |
|
|
Term
| Moloney v. Lambeth London Borough Council (1966) 64 LGR 440 |
|
Definition
Facts - Child fell through rails on property controlled by Lambeth Borough Council.
Issue - Is council liable
Decision- yes
Held - children should be expected on property. The council was expected to take precautions. Furthermore occupiers must be prepared the children will be less careful than adults as to S2(3) (a) of the OLA '57 |
|
|
Term
| General Cleaning Contractors v. Christmas [1953] AC 180 |
|
Definition
Facts - window cleaner of 20 years hired to clean the defendants window. Climbed onto window still and fell.
Issue- is the defendant liable?
decision- No
Held - experience workmen. Risk of calling not within the scope of OLA |
|
|
Term
| Roles v. Nathan [1963] 2 All ER 908 |
|
Definition
Facts-role brothers hired to chimney sweep. Engineers warned them of CO levels. Brothers ignored warning and died of asphyxiation.
Issue - Is landowner liable?
Decision - No
Held - Special risk ordinarily incident to their calling. Ignored warnings- defendant not liable. |
|
|
Term
| Salmon v. Seafarers Restaurant [1983] 1 WLR 1264 |
|
Definition
facts - Fire started because a fryer was left on by defendant. Firefighter was injured whilst on call.
Issue - Is restaurant liable?
Decision - Yes
Held - Negligence of leaving the fryer on which resulted in the injury of the claimant. It was foreseeable the the fryer could cause a fire, and that would result in the calling of firefighters, to the possible injury of one. |
|
|
Term
| Staples V West Dorset Borough Council (1995) |
|
Definition
Facts- Claimant fell of wet algae on rocks. Injured himself. Claims there should have been signs to warn people of risk.
Issue- Is the council liable?
Decision - No
Held- The danger is obvious and known to the claimant. The council had no duty to warn. (s2 4a of the OLA 57) |
|
|
Term
| Darby v National Trust 2001 |
|
Definition
Facts - claimants husband drowned in a pond. There were no precautions to prevent people swimming in the pond.
Issues - Is council Liable ?
Decision - No.
Held -Risk perfectly obvious, no duty to inform on obvious risks. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts - Defendants property was undergoing renovations. Lift fell with person inside.
Issues - is occupier to be held liable.
Decision - No
Held - Contractor was at fault. During construction the liability shifts from occupier to contractors. OLA 57 s2 (4)(b) |
|
|
Term
| Gwilliam v West Herfordshire NHS 2002 |
|
Definition
Facts - Injury to a visitor by a contractor without insurance.
Issue - is occupier liable, for hiring contractor without insurance?
Decision - No
Held - Insurance was checked, however it expired during the work. It was the negligence of the contractor, not the NHS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts - White was a racing driver. He was spectating between races. He was struck by a car and killed. The barrier was an insufficient rope.
Issue - Is the occupier liable for negligence on rope barrier? Does a "volenti" defence apply?
Decision - Yes, and no for the volenti defence.
Held - Volenti defence only applicable to racing. The risks of spectating races were unknown. It was the negligence of Blackmore to erect a suitable barrier. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts - Newberry shot a burglar. Revill claimed for damages of being shot.
Held - Claimant was 2/3rd successful for damages as his negligence reflects his responsibility for his own actions. |
|
|
Term
| Platt v Liverpool City Council 1997 |
|
Definition
Facts - abandoned building in danger of collapse. Boarded up and surrounded by an 8ft wall, with daily inspections. Two children broken and were injured.
Issues - Did the council take precautions against non-visitors? if so did they owe them a duty of care?
Decision- Yes precautions were taken. No duty of care required.
Held - the council had taken precautions against non-visitors and the apparent risks to them. They therefore owed no further duty of care, as to OLA '84 s1 (3). |
|
|
Term
| What does OLA say about warning signs, and where? |
|
Definition
OLA '57 s2 (4) (a)
Discharging duty of care to a visitor regard is to be had on all circumstances....
if the visitor is injured by a danger which he had been warned about. No liability to occupier. |
|
|
Term
| Which statute states that children are owed a higher duty of care than adults? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which statute discharges liability from occupier to independent contractors? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Where a claimant enters FREELY into an agreement with the KNOWLEDGE of the risk |
|
|
Term
| Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
|
Definition
ss. 1+2.
Liability under OLA '57 is encompassed by the definition of negligence.
Limits ability of anyone to exclude their liability. |
|
|
Term
| British Railway Board v Herrington (1972) |
|
Definition
| this established the "common duty of humanity" |
|
|
Term
| Non-visitors are not automatically owed a duty of care. They must fit this criteria: |
|
Definition
OLA '84 s1 (3)
Occupier owes duty of care to a non-visitor if:
i)he is aware of danger
ii)he is aware of the danger
iii) The risk is one where he may reasonably be able to offer protection against such risk |
|
|
