OLA 1957

Put the elements you need to consider for the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in order.

• Occupier/Premises/Lawful Visitor

• Common Duty of Care

• Breach of Duty

• Remedies

• Causation and Remoteness

Under ​ (a)   an occupier is a person who would be ​ ​ (b)   under common law. Following Wheat v Lacon, a person is an occupier if they have a ​ (c)   over the property. Under ​ (d)   premises is any ​ (e)   such as land and buildings.

• s1(2) OLA 1957
• treated as such
• degree of control
• s 1(3) OLA 1957
• fixed or moveable structure

Under s1(2) a lawful visitor is someone with ​ (a)   , express or implied. Permission can be implied due to repeat visits (​ (b)   ), the doctrine of allurement (​ (c)   ), entry to communicate (​ (d)   ) or due to ​ (e)   .

• permission to enter
• Lowery v Walker
• Jolley v Sutton BC
• Robson v Hallett
• statutory powers of entry

To avoid liability an occupier must show that he acted as the ​ (a)   would have done in the ​ (b)   to keep the visitor ​ (c)   .

• reasonable man
• same circumstances
• reasonably safe

Under s2(2) OLA 1957 an occupier owes a '​ (a)   ' to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable ​ (b)   in using the premises for the purposes for which he is ​ (c)   by the occupier to be there.

This is a duty to keep the ​ (d)   , rather than the premises, safe.

The duty is to take reasonable care. Occupiers are not expected to ​ (e)   of lawful visitors

• common duty of care
• to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe
• permitted or invited
• visitor
• guarantee the safety

Which case tells us that an occupier must expect children to be less careful than adults?

• Tedstone v Bourne Leisure

• Woollins v British Celanese

• Moloney v Lambeth LBC

• Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Under ​ (a)   D may be able to discharge his duty by providing reasonable warnings, whether implied (e.g. fence or locked door) or express (notices). Notice should clearly explain the danger and be visible (​ (b)   ).

• s2(4)
• Woollins v British Celanese
• s1(3)
• s2(2)
• Phipps v Rochester Corporation
• Moloney v Lambeth LBC

Match the part of the defence relating to s2(4)(b) independent contractors to the relevant case

• Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

• O took reasonable steps to check competence

• Haseldine v Daw

• It was reasonable for O to bring them in

• Bottomley v Todmorden CC

• O took reasonable steps to check work properly done