The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 - 2032 Words

Introduction The areas of law to be discussed regarding Lord Waltersmith and potential claims are as followed: †¢ The Occupiers Liability Act 1957: This covers the liability of the occupier for injury suffered by a lawful visitor. Occupier is described as the person with sufficient control to carry liability as found in Wheat v E Lacon Co Ltd (1966) †¢ The Occupiers Liability Act 1984: This offers similar protection to trespassers and users of rights of way that the 1957 Act does for lawful visitors. †¢ Vicarious Liability: This is a form of Strict Liability, and refers to a situation where as someone is held accountable for actions or omissions of another person. Lord Waltersmith †¢ Owner of Country Estate †¢ Duty of care †¢ Construction†¦show more content†¦Under the control test there are certain factors that can be taken in to consideration when determining this. It is clear that the contractor has possession of the land on which the site sits. A contract should have been signed before work commenced. Lord Waltersmith’s duty of care should also be discharged as they are no longer in possession of the land. It does not matter that Lord Waltersmith is the owner of the estate that the construction site sits upon. This will place all liability and any potential compensation claim at the contractor’s door. The contractor may argue that West and Peat were only in the vicinity of the construction site because they were paying visitors to the estate, giving both joint liability for any potential claim. This, however, has a slim chance of success as the incident may have still happened if the construction site had not been on Lord Waltersmith’s estate. There is no actual obligation to keep trespassers out, as argued in British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) . There is however, a duty of care that any reasonably foreseeable injury to any lawful or unlawful visitors is avoided, and that all steps are taken to keep visitors aware of any potential dangers upon entering the site and keep them safe. Warning signs stating the danger, may discharge the duty of car a little. These signs would have to be clear descriptive signs clearly stating what dangers were on theShow MoreRelatedOccupiers Liability in the Commonwealth Caribbean9149 Words   |  37 Pages†¨OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY Occupier’s liability forms part of the liability arising from the occupation of premises. It is therefore related to nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, breach of statutory duty and basic negligence. Occupier’s liability covers liability for damage (usually personal injury) which occurs to entrants on to the premises of the defendant. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, Barbados and Jamaica have enacted statutes substantially similar to the English Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Barbados:Read MoreOccupiers Liability1527 Words   |  7 PagesOCCUPIERS LIABILITY The occupancy of premises is affected by two statues: 1) The occupier’s liability act 1957. Under this act there is a duty to keep safe and lawful visitors to the premises 2) The occupier’s liability act 1984. Where an occupier may owe a duty to protect trespassers onto the premises. LAWFUL VISITORS A lawful visitor has permission to enter premises. This can be expressed permission of implied. There are four situations covering implied permissions: 1) If the occupierRead MoreThe Issue Of Public Nuisance1728 Words   |  7 Pagesway by the constructions works been carried out on the demolition of the Regan House and the construction of the Dunn building, then they can make a complaint to the Local Authority (the Environment legislation gives powers to the Local Authority to act) in an aim to get an abatement notice served. The crà ¨che could also sue the principle contracting company for remedies i.e. monetary compensation or that of an injunction which can either be a mandatory injunction or prohibition injunction. In orderRead MoreCase Analysis : The Neighbour Principle 1139 Words   |  5 PagesThe three main elements that must be present for liability to be negligent are, the element is that the defendant must owe duty of care to the Claimant, secondly the defendant must have breached the duty of care by an act or omission and lastly the Claimant must have suffered damages or loss because of the defendant s actions, be i t either physically, emotionally or financially. The court may decide that the Phillip owed a duty of care to Frank if they believed what happened to Frank was not beyondRead MoreOccupiers Liability from the Common Law1704 Words   |  7 PagesThe first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this â€Å"pigeon hole approach† was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it â€Å"†¦ had become too firmlyRead MoreEssay on The Tort of Negligence1119 Words   |  5 Pages There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm ofRead MoreTort Law - Construction5987 Words   |  24 Pagessite as well as legal responsibilities as an employer for his employees and their actions. The following areas have been researched: 1. General tortuous liability and contractual liability 2. Liability applicable to the owner of premises 3. Vicarious Liability and Health and Safety 4. Strict Liability Procedure The following research methods were used: Class Notes Text book: Modern Law of Contract, 5th Edition by Richard Stone Websites: en.wikipediaRead MoreCase Study of Tort Law5724 Words   |  23 PagesTask1 What kind of liability do you think Ton should bear in Scenario 1? Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability. There are three differences between liability and contractual liability: A. The difference of base. Contractual liability means that due to the breach of duty, contractual collateral obligation of contract or violates the contract law provisions of the obligations. Finding out a contractual liability has to be in termsRead MoreQuestions On Formation Of Contract4022 Words   |  17 Pages..........8 5- Vicarious Liability...................................................................................................................9 6- Occupiers Liability.................................................................................................................11 7- Strict Liability.........................................................................................................................12 8- Negligence and Vicarious Liability...........................Read MoreLaw, Fault Essay (Aqa)2522 Words   |  11 Pagesbe proved that he carried out an illegal act in a blameworthy manner. An act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty. The state of mind of the D is hugely important in assessing whether or not he is at fault. However, to be found guilty of most criminal offences (true crimes) both an AR and MR must be proved. The AR also includes elements of fault. These elements relate to the level of responsibility, a positive voluntary act is considered more blameworthy than an omission