Level 14 Level 16
20 words 0 ignored
Ready to learn Ready to review
Check the boxes below to ignore/unignore words, then click save at the bottom. Ignored words will never appear in any learning session.
Lowery v Walker
If the occupier knows that people are repeatedly visiting his land and he does nothing about it, permission may well be implied.
Harvey v Plymouth City Council
A visitor cannot use the OLA 1957 if he exceeds his permission by engaging in dangerous activities.
Jolley v Sutton LBC
A child is not a trespasser if he wanders on to land to investigate something that is both dangerous and attractive to children.
Pearson v Coleman Bros
If signs which limit permission are unclear, the C will be given the benefit of the doubt.
Harris v Birkenhead
An occupier is any person who controls the premises.
Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd
To avoid liability, the occupier must show that he acted as the reasonable occupier would have done in the same circumstances.
Woolins v British Celanese
For a warning to discharge a duty, the C must be able to see it.
Perry v Butlins
It is not enough to have taken steps to protect adults if the reasonable occupier would have taken steps to protect children.
Phipps v Rochester
An occupier can expect that parents will take appropriate care of young children.
Roles v Nathan
A specialist visitor should be aware of and protect himself against risks within his own specialism.
Horton v Jackson
There is no need to warn against an obvious risk.
Haseldine v Daw and Son
The occupier will not be liable if his property is dangerous because of work done by an independent contractor which is beyond his expertise to complete himself or to check.
Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd
Putting up a sign can restrict or exclude the duty of care.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
Trespassers are people who go onto land without permission and whose presences is either unknown or objected to by the occupier.
Swain v Natui Ram Puri
The occupier must have had actual knowledge of relevant facts which provided grounds for such a belief that a danger exists.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
An occupier will not owe a duty if he cannot be expected to know that trespassers will be in the vicinity of the danger at the time.
Scott v Associated British Ports
An expectation of trespassers might arise due to knowledge of previous incidents of trespassing.
Keown v Coventry NHS Trust
An occupier is liable only for injury caused by state of the premises, not by the dangerous activities of the trespasser.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
Clear and visible signs warning of a danger may be all that an occupier needs to do to discharge the duty under the 1984 act.
Titchener v BRB
An occupier owes no duty in respect of risks willingly accepted by the trespasser under s1(6).