Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 Quiz

Under which section of OLA 1984 does a duty apply in respect of people other than visitors (trespassers)?

• Section 1(1)(a)

• Section 2(1)(b)

• Section 3(1)(c)

• Section 4(1)(d)

What must a potential claimant overcome to show that the occupier of the premises owes him a duty under the Act?

• Two key hurdles

• Three key hurdles

• Four key hurdles

• Five key hurdles

According to the provisions of section 1(3) OLA 1984, what must an occupier be aware of or have reasonable grounds to believe?

• The claimant's activities

• The danger on his premises

• The claimant's identity

• The weather conditions

Which of the following is NOT a condition under section 1(3) OLA 1984 for an occupier to owe a duty in respect of a danger on his premises?

• He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists.

• He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone else is in the vicinity of the danger.

• The danger is one which, in all the circumstances, he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection against.

• The claimant must be a family member.

What must the claim arise out of according to the first point mentioned in the document?

• The dangerous activities of the claimant

• The dangerous state of the premises

• The negligence of the occupier

• The weather conditions

In the case of Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2006), what was the primary reason the Court of Appeal found no liability?

• The fire escape was not dangerous.

• The child did not appreciate the danger.

• The state of the premises was not the cause of harm.

• The child was not injured.

According to the Court of Appeal in Keown v Coventry NHS Trust (2006), what factor was considered in determining the cause of harm?

• The existence of the fire escape.

• The child's appreciation of the danger.

• The activities of the claimant.

• The dangerous state of the premises.

What does the court consider when making allowances for children in premises liability cases?

• The age of the child.

• The dangerous activities of the child.

• The state of the premises.

• The fact that premises not dangerous for adults may be dangerous for children.

In the case of Siddorn v Patel (2007), why were the occupiers not held liable for the claimant's injury?

• The claimant was not injured.

• The skylight was not in itself dangerous.

• The claimant was not invited to the party.

• The skylight was unsuitable for its usual purpose.

What was the key principle applied in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)?

• The lake was inherently dangerous.

• The activities of the claimant were not dangerous.

• The lake was not dangerous although the activities of the claimant were.

• The council was liable for the claimant's activities.