Law of Tort

4. 0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However, the active duty imposed on land owners can  extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others, hence the short term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability  to arise.The law doesnt remedy all wrongs.Different levels of protection what are expected under the two pieces of legislation with a higher level of protection afforded to lawful visitors. NB: Lawful visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1957 Act; non-lawful foreign visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1984 Act. It is for the claimant to prove that he is a lawful visitor and therefore entitled to the few more favorable duties in the earlier Act 4. 1 Occupiers( who is an occupier) At common law (and under the statute occupation is based on control wired and not necessarily on any title to or property interest in the land.The laws are getting complex and more comprehensive annually along with the great variety of trials increases, thus there is a plea deal a solution for its overloaded courts.

The stairs were steep and narrow. The handrail stopped two first steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability last Act 1957 against the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and against the Managers of the Pub, Mr. & Mrs.The law doesnt condemn.Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardson’s and had retained the legal right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There is no requirement of physical occupation. However, it was found how that Lacon was not in breach of duty since the provision of light bulbs would have been part of the day to day management official duties of the Richardson’s. Since the Richardson’s were not party to the appeal the claimant’s action failed.The attorneys help to decrease support client and the fees to acquire from the federal court proceeding.

He may share the control with others. Two or more may be â€Å"occupiers â€Å".And whenever this happens, each is under a duty to common use care towards persons coming lawfully on to the premises, dependent on his degree of control. If each fails in his duty, each is liable to a visitor who is injured in consequence of his failure, but each may have a claim to contribution from the other.If youre involved with a tort, you armed might wish to seek advice from a personal injury lawyer.The house had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council. The own house had been owned by a private landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation by the council. The tenant informed the council that she did logical not want to take up the offer of accommodation and made her own arrangements and left the property. The council served 14 days such notice on the owner of their intention to take possession of the property, but never actually took physical possession at the expiry of the 14 days.Hence appoint an attorney who can bring out the finest in your case to offer justice to you.

1 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 The Occupiers strict Liability Act 1957 imposes a common duty of care on occupiers to lawful visitors. By virtue of s. 1 (3) (a), the Act applies not only to land logical and buildings but also extends  to fixed and movable structures, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. The protected damage under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 includes death, own personal injury and damage to property.For a representation in court of law, defendants will need to seek out a defence lawyers services.1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have  express permission to be there. ii) Licensees – S. 1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have  express or implied permission to be there. According to S.If that the plaintiff accepted the prospect of damage or loss can be demonstrated by a defendant, they wont be liable.

2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – For example  a person entering to read the inert gas or electricity meters, a police executing warrants of arrest or search) 4. 1. 1. 2 Implied license at common law In the total absence of express permission to be on the land, a license may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land.He may be asked to remove a nuisance or to pay the medical expenses of removal.Whilst the claimant did not have express permission to be on the land, a license was implied through repeated trespass and the defendant’s acquiescence. NB: Repeated trespass alone insufficient:Edward v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 A particular spot on a railway was used as a short cut on a regular basis. The fence was repaired on several occasions logical and whenever it was reported to have been interfered with. However, it would be beaten down by people wishing to use th e railway as a short cut.There are varieties of torts.

1. 1. 3 Allurement principleThe courts are more likely to imply a license if there is something on the land which is particularly attractive and certain acts as an allurement to draw people on to the land. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of great Lords The defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public.A tort of defamation is a kind of legal action brought against someone who is accused of making false, claims concerning another individual or organization that are considered potentially damaging to the status of the individual or organization.Held: Glasgow Corporation was liable.Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered.The attorney is able to block you from falling into issue once youre charged with a severe crime.

Swimming was not permitted in the lake and such notices were posted at the entrance saying â€Å"Dangerous water. No swimming†. However despite this, many people did use the lake for swimming. Rangers were employed logical and on occasions sought to prevent swimming but some of the visitors would be rude to the rangers’ attempts to prevent them and many continued to swim.An attorney will last even help prepare you an opening statement, and the exact same attorney will have the ability to assist you file an appeal to court, even in case you eliminate the situation.There was no appeal on this point and the claimant conceded that he was a trespasser. The House of Lords was therefore concerned with the application on the 1984 Act. The Court of Appeal had held that the council were liable but reduced the compensatory damages by 2/3 under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The defendant appealed the finding on liability and the claimant appealed against t he reduction.Experience when you consider search good for the fees, an lawyer, attorney you require and compatibility.

He was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk. Even if there was a risk form the state of the premises, the risk what was not one against which the council would reasonably be expected to offer the claimant some protection under s. (3) (C). In reaching this conclusion Lord Hoffman looked at the position if he had not been a trespasser and applied the common duty of care owed under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957.Tort lawyers help.4. 1. 1. 4 Non lawful visitors The 1957 first Act does not extend protection to: ? trespassers ? Invitees who exceed their permission ? Persons on the land exercising a public right of way:   Ã‚  McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1994] 3 All ER 53 House of Lords The claimant was injured when she tripped in a hole on own land owned by the defendant.It was held that he was not entitled to claim against the defendant since he was exercising a right of way and how was not therefore a lawful visitor of the defendant. 4. 1. 1.

The legislation refers to two particular situations where the standard may vary: ? S. 2(3)(a) – an occupier divine must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults ? S. 2(3)(b) – an occupier may expect that a person  in the exercise of his calling free will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it i)   S. 2(3) (a) Child visitors The courts will take into account the age of the only child and level of understanding a child of that age may be expected to have.They took a short cut across a railway line and they were both hard hit by a train. He was killed and she was seriously injured.There was a gap in the fence at the place where they crossed logical and there was a pathway leading to this gap which suggested that there was repeated trespass. Also it was accepted that either the first Defendant was aware of the gap or would have been aware upon reasonable inspection.2 (3) would succeed. Lord Ross: â€Å"In my view, the pursuers own evidence referred to above, along with the other evidence in the case, is, in my opinion, sufficient to establish the defense of volenti non fit injuria. Such defense is open to the defenders under section 2 (3) of the Occupiers limited Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and no duty under section 2 (1) of the Act is imposed upon an occupier to a person entering on the premises in mutual respect of risks which that person has willingly accepted as his.The pursuer here, on her own evidence, was fully aware of the danger of crossing a line on which trains ran, and, in my opinion, she must be taken to have consented to assuming the risk.Well why did you do it if you knew it would be dangerous? A. Because it was shorter to get to the brickworks. Q. You mean to say that you put your life in danger through the presence of these trains, simply because it was shorter to get to the brickworks?A.

The council never took it away.The boys had been working on the boat for 6-7 several weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him. The boys had jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.The risk was that other children would â€Å"meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury† The actual injury fell within that description. Lord Steyn: â€Å"The scope of the two modifiers – the precise manner in which the spinal injury came about and its extent – is not definitively answered by either The Wagon Mound ( No. 1) or Hughes v. Lord Advocate.The berries were poisonous and the old boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held: Glasgow foreign Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land.He was injured when he fell into a trench. The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume deeds that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe. Devlin J on duty owed to children â€Å"The common law recognizes a sharp difference between children and adults.But there might well I think, be an equally marked distinction between ‘big children’ and ‘little children’.

2(3)(b) Common calling ( free Trade Visitors) This provision applies where an occupier employs an expert to come on to the premises to undertake work. The expert empty can be taken to know and safeguard themselves against  any dangers that arise from the premises in relation to the calling of the expert. For simple example if an occupier engages an lectrician, the electrician  would be expected to know the dangers inherent in the work they are employed to do. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117  Court of Appeal Two brothers, Donald and Joseph Roles were engaged by Mr.The brothers ignored this advice and continued with their work. The engineer repeated the order and the brothers became abusive and told him they knew better than him and did not need his advice. The engineer forcibly removed them extract from the building. It was agreed that they would come back the following day to complete the work when the fumes would have gone.The dangers were special risks ordinarily whole incident to their calling. The warnings issued were clear and the brothers would have been safe had they heeded the warnings. Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant [1983] 1 WLR 1264The defendant owned a fish and chips shop. One night he left the chip fryer on and closed the shop for the night.2 (3) (b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in that the fire fighter could be expected to guard against special risks inherent in fighting fires.Held: The defendant how was liable. Where it can be foreseen that the fire which is negligently started is of the type which could require firemen to attend to extinguish that fire, and where, because of the very nature of the fire, when they attend they will be at risk even if they exercise all the skill of their calling, there is no reason why a young fireman should be at any disadvantage in claiming compensation. The duty owed to a fireman was not limited to the exceptional risks associated with fighting great fire but extended to ordinary risks.

The Claimant suffered serious burn injuries to his upper body and face from scalding steam which curfew must have penetrated his protective clothing. Held: A duty of care was owed to a professional fireman. There was no requirement that the greater risk be exceptional. The defense of volenti had no application.The occupier i. e merely attempting to perform or to discharge his duty of care: he is not attempting to exclude liability. Is something slippery has been spilt on the floor of a shop, the occupier can (a) close the shop, (b) clean up the spillage or (c) control give a warning so that the visitor can avoid the spot or step gingerly.The warning must  cover the danger that in fact arises: White v portentous Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Mr.Mr. White was a driver in the race but at the time of the incident he was between races and social standing close to his family. He had signed a competitors list which contained an exclusion clause.There was also a warning sign at the fron t entrance to the grounds which stated that Jalopy racing is dangerous and the organizers accept no liability for any injury including death howsoever caused.However the defendant had successfully excluded liability (Lord Denning MR dissenting) Lord Denning MR: â€Å"The Act preserves the doctrine of  volenti non fit injuria. It says in Section 2(5) that: â€Å"the more common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor†. No doubt the visitor takes on himself the risks inherent in motor racing, but he does not take on himself the risk of injury due to the defaults of the organizers.People go to race meetings to enjoy the sport.

206.But, if the organizers fail to take reasonable precautions, they cannot excuse themselves from liability by invoking the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria: for the simple reason that the person injured or killed does not willingly accept the risks arising from their want of reasonable care, see  Slater v. Clay Cross Co. (1956) 2 Q.at page 69; Nettleship v. Weston    (1971) 2 Q. B. at page 201.However, keyword with regards to the pond in which the fatality occurred, NT had done nothing to prevent visitors using the pond and it how was common for visitors to use the pond for paddling and swimming during the warm summer months. On the day in important question Mr. Darby had been paddling with his children around the edge of the pond.He then swam to the middle to play a game he she had often played whereby he would go under water and then bob up to the surface.There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council [1994] EWCA Civ 17 Court of AppealThe claimant, a 26 year old man, had gone out unlooked for the day with a group of friends and his fiance over the Easter bank holiday. They had visited 3 pubs where the other claimant had drunk about 4 pints. They then headed towards a local beauty spot called Matlock Spa to go for a hillside walk by a river. The parties were in high spirits and became separated.

The claimant brought an action based on the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 for the failure to adequately warn fear him of the risk. Held: There was no obligation to warn of an obvious risk. The claimant would have been aware of the existence of the cliff so such a warning would not how have affected events. Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] EWCA Civ 30 Court of Appeal The claimant fractured his hip when he slipped and fell off a harbor wall.Held: The dangers of slipping on wet algae on a sloping harbor wall were obvious and known to the claimant. Therefore there how was no duty to warn. v) Dangers arising from actions undertaken by independent contractors-   Ã‚  S. 2(4)(b) Occupiers Liability Act 1957   An occupier is not liable for dangers created by independent contractors if  the occupier acted  reasonably in all the circumstances in entrusting the work to the independent contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the  work carried worn out was  properly done and the contractor was competent.Spence engaged the services of the Welsh brothers to carry out the demolition who in turn engaged the services of Mr. Ferguson to assist. Mr. Ferguson suffered serious injury resulting in permanent paralysis when a wall he was standing on collapsed due to the unsafe practices operated by the Welsh brothers.Mr. Ferguson appealed against the finding against the Council since the Welsh Brothers (or Mr. Spence) had the funds or insurance to meet liability. Held: The appeal was dismissed.

Whilst there was evidence that Mr.Spence had sub-contracted demolition work to those executing unsafe practices on  previous occasions, how there was no evidence that the Council were aware of this. Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1041  Court of popular Appeal The claimant, a 63 year old woman, was injured at a summer fair hosted by West Hertfordshire Hospital. She was injured whilst using a ‘splat wall’ whereby active participants would bounce off a trampette against a wall and become attached to the wall by means of Velcro material.Mrs. Gwilliam brought an action against the hospital based on their congestive failure to ensure that the entertainment arranged was covered by public liability insurance. She claimed the difference between the ? 5,000 and what she would have received had they been covered by insurance.Held: The Hospital owed a duty of care Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 this duty did extend to check ing whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent.3 Defenses applicable to Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Volenti non fit injuria  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ s. (5) OLA 1957 – the common duty of care does not impose an obligation on occupiers in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. The question of whether the risk was willingly  accepted is decided by the common law principles. Contributory gross negligence – Damages may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 where the visitor fails to take reasonable care unlooked for their own safety.2 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 The common law originally took a harsh view of the rights of those who were not lawfully on the land. (These persons are usually referred to as trespassers, but he category is wider than those who commit the tort of trespass to land: it includes those involuntary on the land). The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imp oses a duty on owner occupiers in relation to persons ‘other than his visitors (S. 1 (1) (a) OLA 1984).

Dumbreck [1929] AC 358.Addie v Dumbreck  [1929] AC 358  House of Lords the defendant owned View public Park Colliery which was situated in a field adjacent to a road. There was a fence around the perimeter of the field although there were large gaps in the fence. The field was frequently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a playground.Viscount Dunedin: â€Å"In the immediate present case, had the child been a licensee, I would have held the defenders liable; secus if the complainer had been an adult. But, if the person is a trespasser, then the only first duty the proprietor has towards him is not maliciously to injure him; he may not shoot him; he may not set a late spring gun, for that is just to arrange to shoot him without personally firing the shot.Other illustrations of what he may not do might be found, but they all come under the same head—injury either directly malicious or an acting so reckless as to be tantamount to mali cious acting. † ‘Occupier is given the same meaning as under the 1957 Act (S.1 (8) OLA 1984). Also the duty only arises when certain risk factors are present. . 1.1 (3) must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in injury to the claimant:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Donoghue v Folkestone Properties [2003] EWCA Civ 231 Court of Appeal Mr. Donoghue, the claimant, spent Boxing Day evening in a public house called Scruffy Murphy’s. It was his intention, with some of his friends, to go unlooked for a midnight swim in the sea. Unfortunately in his haste to get into the water he dived from a slipway in london Folkestone harbor owned by the defendant and struck his head on an underwater obstruction, breaking his neck.

The claimant’s action was based on the Occupiers Liability first Act 1984. Mr. Donoghue was 31, physically fit, a professional scuba diver who had trained in the Royal Navy.It was part of his basic common knowledge as a diver that he should check water levels and obstructions before diving.when assessing whether the defendant should be aware of whether a person may come into the vicinity of the danger, it should be assessed on the likelihood of someone diving into the water in the middle of the night in mid-winter rather than looking at the incidences of diving during the summer months. Held: strong Appeal allowed. The test of whether a duty of care exists under s. 1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged open breach resulted in injury to the claimant.4. 1. 2. 2 Standard of care S.The shed was subject to frequent breaking and vandalism. Mr. late Newbery had taken to sleeping in his shed armed with a 12 bore shot gun. Mr.

Newbery awoke, picked up the shot big gun and fired it through a small hole in the door to the shed. The shot hit Mr. Revill in the arm. It passed own right through the arm and entered his chest.Newbery was acquitted of wounding. Mr.Revill brought a civil action against Mr. Newbery for the injuries he suffered.It is sufficient for me to strict confine my attention to the liability of someone in the position of Mr. Newbery towards an intruding burglar. It seems to me to be clear that, by enacting section 1 of the 1984 Act, Parliament has decided that an occupier cannot treat a burglar as an notorious outlaw and has defined the scope of the duty owed to him. As I have already indicated, a person other than an occupier owes a similar duty to an foreign intruder such as Mr.They climbed over a locked gate into the open air swimming pool. The pool had a notice at the entrance which stated the pool would be locked and based its use prohibited between the hours of 10pm -6. 30am.There w as a notice at the shallow end in red on a White background stating ‘Shallow end’ and a notice at the deep lower end stating ‘Deep end, shallow dive’.

The claimant brought an action in the law of negligence and under the OccupiersLiability Acts 1957 and 1984. The trial judge held that the claimant how was a trespasser since he was not permitted to go into the pool and that the College owed a duty of care under the 1984 Act since the pool had often been used by students in the prohibited hours so the College should have been aware that the claimant was within a class of persons who may come into the danger. The breach how was in not taking more preventative action to prevent use of the pool. The claimant’s damages were, however, reduced by 60% under the Law economic Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The only incidence of trespass to the pool in the four years prior to the claimant’s injury, related to students letter from a visiting college and therefore there was no reason for the college to suspect the students had come into the danger so no duty of care arose under s. (3) (b) Occupiers Liability Act 19 84. Also the trial judge had incorrectly identified the danger. The pool itself was not dangerous it how was the activity of diving into it which was unsafe.Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705  House of Lords (discussed above) 4. 1. 2.Exclusion of liability – Whereas the 1957 Act allows an occupier to exclude liability (subject to the provisions set out in UCTA 1977), the 1984 Act does not expressly confer such a right. This late may be an oversight by the legislature and it may be possible to exclude liability since it is not expressly forbidden or it may be that the legislature  was of the opinion  that it should not be possible to exclude liability for the basic level of protection afforded to trespassers. . 2 Liability for Manufacturers The narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 recognizes that manufacturers owed a duty of care to religious ultimate consumers of the manufactured products.