Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 - key liability cases

In the case of Wheat v Lacon (1966), what was the legal principle established?

• The premises do not have to be completely safe.

• Occupier is the person with control over the premises.

• Occupier has to protect child visitors from allurements.

• Occupier is liable for injuries suffered by children that are reasonably foreseeable.

What was the fact in the case of Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)?

• Visitor fell down stairs and died.

• Child poisoned by berries growing on bush in park.

• Customer injured in shop.

• Young child injured when falling into a trench.

In the case of Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922), what was the legal principle established?

• Occupier can expect parents to supervise very young children.

• Occupier is liable for injuries suffered by children that are reasonably foreseeable.

• Occupier has to protect child visitors from allurements.

• Occupier can expect workmen to appreciate and guard against risks that are incidental to their work.

What was the fact in the case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)?

• Child poisoned by berries growing on bush in park.

• Young child injured when falling into a trench.

• Teenager injured when playing on boat on council’s land.

• Chimney sweeps killed when working in industrial chimney.

In the case of Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000), what was the legal principle established?

• Occupier is liable for injuries suffered by children that are reasonably foreseeable.

• Occupier can expect parents to supervise very young children.

• Occupier has to protect child visitors from allurements.

• Occupier can expect workmen to appreciate and guard against risks that are incidental to their work.

What was the fact in the case of Roles v Nathan (1963)?

• Visitor fell down stairs and died.

• Customer injured in shop.

• Teenager injured when playing on boat on council’s land.

• Chimney sweeps killed when working in industrial chimney.

What case illustrated the fact that the premises do not have to be completely safe?

Answer explanation

The premises do not have to be completely safe, but they must be reasonably safe for visitors

What does the occupiers liability expect with regards to very young children?

Answer explanation

The occupiers liability at 1957 can expect that parents need to supervise very young children according to the case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

What was the legal principal in Glasgow corporation v Taylor (1922)?

• No to allow children in to the premises

• The has to protect child visitors from allurements

• Stop smokers

• Ban all visitors