Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
The following is a more accessible 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:
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957
0. Actionable Damage
S.1(1)
Rules... shall have effect, in place of the rules of common law, to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises
So personal injury and property damage
Includes damage to property not from visitors so long as brought by a visitor
S.1(3)(b) regulates... the obligations of a person...in respect of damage to property
Including the property of those themselves who are not visitors
Does the Act only apply to “occupancy” duty?
What the difference?
Occupancy Duty: Arises from the state of the premises, not things done on them
This is definitely governed by the OLAs
Activity Duty: Arises from things done on the premises
Under old law, this was only dealt with under ordinary negligence principles
Unclear from the Act
Activity duty? s.1(1) [the Act shall apply] “in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to thing done, or omitted to be done on them”
BUT occupancy duty only? S.1(2): [the act shall] “regulate the nature of the duty imposed by law in consequence of a person’s occupation or control of the premises”
Case law suggests occupancy duty only
Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee v Poppleton
May LJ
The judge rejected Mr Poppleton's claim in so far as it alleged breach of s.2 of the Occupiers Liability 1957 .
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the state of the premises
and there was no relevant breach of duty to people other than Mr P arising from Mr P's activities.
Is D an occupier?
From the Act
S.1(3)(a) The rules so enacted... shall apply...to regulate
the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
s.1(2) accordingly for the purpose of the rules so enacted the persons who are to be treated as an occupier...
are the same as...the persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier
Common law
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co Ltd [1966]:Mr W fell down some badly lit stairs at pub he was staying in and fractured his skull, killing him. C, his widow, claimed damages against L, the owners of the pub, and R, the licensees who actually lived and worked in the pub, for negligence causing death.
Lord Denning:
Occupier – someone who has sufficient control of premises
That they will be liable if they don’t take care towards a visitor injured on them
Where owner does not let premises but allows people to stay as licensees
He is regarded as being sufficiently in control of the structure to impose duty on him for all legal visitors
No difficulty with the fact that three people in this case could be said to be occupiers
They all owed a duty to do what was reasonable to the visitor to ensure their safety.
Giliker: key question = no whether person is in actual occupation but whether they exercise control over the premises?
Harris v Birkenhead Corp [1976]: LA served notice of compulsory purchase on Z, and then a notice of entry telling Z, the tenant, to leave. LA did not enter after 14 days, Z hung around for a few more weeks, and then departed. C (4yo) entered premises through unsecured door, and then fell out of window, causing injury. Sued LA
Held that LA became occupier as soon as Z departed
Would not be the same for all cases
But fact no actual possession/control taken does not preclude fact that X may be regarded as occupier
if they have right to take possession.
Page v Reid (1984): Independent contractor only becomes occupier depending on nature of work undertaken
Constructing Office Block = occupier of site
Decorating house = not occupier
2. Did the damage to C come from Premises?
No specific definition given by Act
BUT s.1(3)(a):
Any fixed or moveable structure
Including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
And definition normally construed widely.
Duty to Tenants modified by Defective Premises Act 1972 s.4:
(1) Where premises are let under a tenancy
Where landlord has obligation to tenant for maintenance/ repair of premises
Duty owed to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances
to all persons reasonably to be expected to be affected by defects in premises
so they are reasonably safe from personal injury
or damage to property caused by the defect
(2) The said duty is owed if the landlord knows
or if he ought in all the circumstances to have known
of the relevant defect.
3. Is C a visitor?
S.1(2): Visitor = invitee/licensee
“accordingly for the purpose of the rules so enacted the persons who are to be treated as an occupier and as his visitors are the same (subject to subsection (4))
as the persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier and as his invitees or licensees
Common law definitions
Invitees
People who entered premises to pursue “common interest” with occupier
E.g. customers entering a shop
Occupier (shop owner) obliged to use reasonable care to protect invitee from unusual dangers.
Licensees
Where no “common interest”
But express/implied permission by Occupier for X to be on premises
Occupier only obliged to warn about any trap/concealed danger which they have actual knowledge
S.5(1): Occupier allowed to set own standard of care for contractual entrants
But in absence of such provisions
Contractual entrants owed “common duty of care” like visitors.
Fact that X has contractual rights which are breached does not mean that liability of L is engaged
Berryman v Hounslow LBC (unreported): L had contractual obligations to repair a lift under the lease with his tenants. He failed to do so and the lift became inoperative.
Held
This is a breach of contract, but not a breach of the common duty in tort
(unless there is no other reasonably safe access to the building)
S.1(4) Persons exercising rights of way are not...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started