Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Discharging An Occupier Notes

Law Notes > Tort Law Notes

This is an extract of our Discharging An Occupier document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Discharging common duty of care Nature of Duty Owed

*
Duty Owed o Single duty owed by occupier to all lawful visitors regardless of purpose of entering
? S.2(2): "Common duty

*
To take such care as in circumstances is reasonable o To see that visitor is reasonably safe in using premises
? For purpose for which visitor invited or permitted by occupier to be there
? Giliker: Act is visitor-centric rather than property centric

*
So inviting a blind man onto the premises will lead to a greater duty to take care of visitor than if sighted person invited

*
Thus liability can arise where occupier merely fails to protect a visitor o From danger on the premises
? Thus proximity, regarding Occupiers Liability, is not a requirement.
? Merely that O has invited C onto the premises.

*
Breaching Duty o Courts will have regard to the same general factors which would be considered in common law negligence action
? E.g. Likelihood and foreseeability of risk materialising
? Magnitude of loss if no steps taken
? Difficulty in cost and practicality of taking precautions o S.2(3): Consider the "degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor" Special rules regarding children and professional visitors

*
Children o S.2(3)(a): Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. o Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000]:
? Lord Steyn: Occupiers should not underestimate ingenuity of children to do injuries to themselves

*
And should therefore be prepared to take appropriate precautions. o Giliker: occupiers liability often wide when it comes to children
? Occupier not always liable for children coming to harm

*
Phipps v Rochester Corp [1955]: o Devlin J:
? Big children are curious and D should take reasonable steps to ensure they don't bring themselves to harm
? Small children lack any understanding or care

*
And it would not be right for D to have to take great steps to protect them (more so than with big children)

*
When it is clear that what they need is to be accompanied by a parent/guardian

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.

More Tort Law Samples