Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

OLA

Remove complexities common law sufficient


protection
1957 Act did but merely created new issues
need 1984 Act
Inequality of protection remains
Before 1957 Act, depend on classifications
Created complexities addressed in Law
Commission Report 1954
Led to 1957 common DOC by all occupiers
To simplify law and certainty when duty will
arise and to what extent
S1(2) meaning of occupier sufficient control
Wheat v Lacan
S2(1) OCCUPIER owe common DoC to
visitors
Difficulties ascertaining categories solved
But problems on who was a visitor
S2(2) DUTY applies to all visitors ensure
reasonably safe purpose
If acting oddly, Act may not apply for visitors
Allowed to alter duty through contract, albeit
now subject to UCTA 1977
S2(3) more prepared for children to be less
careful premises must be reasonably safe
for child that age
S2(3B) expect those in exercise of his calling
will appreciate and guard any special risks.
S2(4b) if falls below DoC, occupiers will be
liable for independent contractor.

Burden created towards people who


arguably should not be on premises BRB V
Herrington where judicial opinions lacked
clarity to when duty will arise and its extent,
Led to law commission report on 1976
recommendations adopted to 1984 Act
Duty owed to trespassers and sought to
achieve better balance of not burdening the
occupiers too much
S1(1) duty to non0visitors
Can be straight away seen that lesser
protection afforded as visitors are owed a
duty only when premises are non-dangerous
S1 (3) MUST BE SATISFIED TO SUE aware,
vicinity,protect
If satisfied, duty to take such care is
reasonable to see that injury from danger
does not occur
No duty for injury again, lesser extent
afforded to visitors
Protection less extensive than that given to
visitors.
Premise of statement that high level of
protection given regardless of persons
status is ultimately flawed

OLA
Degree of suspicion seems to infringe occupiers
rights to his private life
Liable not because of actions but due to state of
premises
Feel that it is unfair but OLA tries really hard to
balance conflicting interests
Not everyone can be occupier Wheat v Lacan
Only protects visitors
Made liable for persons who are foreseeable
Duty that is imposed is common DoC
Law recognizes there are defects in premise
S2(1) LIBERTY to occupier to extend, restrict or
modify duty
Not terribly burdensome can be discharged by
mere warning
Varying degree of duty fair
Higher duty to children not unfair law
paternalistic attitude in other areas of law too S2(3)
Lesser degree of care exercise in his calling S2(3B)
believe they can guard
Healthy balance seems to be struck
Duty not burdensome can be easily discharged
independent contractor S2(4b)
To achieve some kind of fairness, occupiers must
satisfy 3 criteria before they can shift burden
Recognition of defences
Must still satisfy occupier requirement
Not easy to impose duty

Aware , vicinity , risk should be protected


Redcliffe v McConnel / Keown v Coventry Health Care
NHS Trust
Consdider intentional/accidental entry , nature of
risk , age of trespasser, cost of precaution
Defences
At the end of day- although unfair closer inspection
law dedicatedly tries to create healthy balance
between interest of occupier and those who enter
his land. Although OLA designed to protect people
who enter occupiers land, defences created clearly
protect occupiers too.

RYLANDS V FLETCHER
Long standing liability- escape