Occupiers Liability P3

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Law, Invitee, Independent contractor
  • Pages : 2 (408 words )
  • Download(s) : 176
  • Published : May 19, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Visitor|
Express: An express visitor will have permission by the owner or occupier e.g. School children are express visitors as they have permission to stay In the school as a visitor.| Implied: An implied visitor is visitor who do not have permission but is still aloud to enter the premises, e.g. a postman, a postman does not need to ask for permission before they can enter the premises.| OLA 1957 – ‘An occupier of premises owes a common law of duty of care to all his visitors’. The Law

If a visitor goes into a ‘private’ area they may become a trespasser even if they have permission to be on the premises for a different reason.| The 3 Exceptions Children: When it comes to occupier’s liability there are some exceptions. The law on children says ‘ an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’. For instance in the Pearson V Coleman Bros (1948) a 7 year old girl went to the circus with her family. She wandered of to go to the toilets instead she ended up in the animal enclosure and was attacked by a lion. We could argue the law of occupiers liability doesn’t cover the the child as went into a private area, but the law says that children are naturally inquisitive and can easily be ‘allured’ (animals, water, broken glass etc). Warnings: If the occupier gives someone a fair warning then the occupier cannot be sued if his warning is ignored. Look at this case for instance, Roles V Nathan (1963), a chimney sweeper turnt up at a mans house and was told not to sweep his chimney as there was a leakage, but he ignored the warnings and the sweeper was poisoned and died. Independent Contractors: The law says that where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty executions of any work of constructions, maintance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not liable. In the case Haseldine v Daw (1941)...
tracking img