Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Discharging An Occupier Notes

Law Notes > Tort Law Notes

Updates Available  

A more recent version of these Discharging An Occupier notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.

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