Tort - Occupiers Liability I
Occupiers
liability refers to the duty that is owed by those who occupy property through
ownership or lease to visitors to their land or property. Despite the fact that
owners legally own the land they must take adequate, relevant and appropriate
steps to ensure that any visitor to their property, whether invited or
otherwise, is not subjected to the risk of accident, injury or illness.
In
Jolley v Sutton LBC (1998), for example, the council had left an abandoned boat
on a piece of land that it owned with a notice stuck to it that warned others
not to meddle with the boat and if the boat was unclaimed within 7 days it
would be removed. The boat however was left abandoned for 2 years and in that
time it had further deteriorated and posed a hazard to trespassers or anyone
else who clambered on it or fiddled with it.
The
boat was discovered by two 14-year-old boys who as boys normally do got carried
away with it and tried to do it up. While they were trying to fix the boat,
there was an accident and one of the boys suffered serious spinal injuries and
was paralyzed as a result. The plaintiff sued under the Occupiers Liability Act
1957 and was successful.
It
was reasonably foreseeable that if the boat was not disposed of in the appropriate
manner, someone sometime was likely to stumble across it and there was a real
likelihood that the person(s) could sustain some form of harm or injury as a
result.
In
Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) the plaintiff was walking down the aisle of a
Tesco store shopping when she stepped on some spilled yogurt and subsequently
slipped and fell. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the accident and
brought an action against Tesco for negligence. The court held that Tesco owed
its customers a duty of care and it had breached that duty by failing to ensure
that the floors were kept clean at all times. The plaintiff’s injury was the
result of stepping on the spilled yogurt or the plaintiff would not have been
injured but for the spilled yogurt and thus the defendant was held to be
liable.
The
plaintiff despite having brought an action in negligence could have also
brought a successful action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. The act was
enacted primarily “to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to
his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to
things done or omitted to be done on them.” (Section I(I)).
S2
of the act elaborates on the natures of the duty that is owed. S2(1) An
occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care”, to all his
visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify
or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.
The
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 further reinforces the principles that were laid
down in the 1957 act. S1(1) The rules enacted by this section shall have
effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to determine -
(a)
whether any duty is owed by a person as occupier of premises to persons other
than his visitors in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the
premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things
done or omitted to be done on them; and
(b)
if so, what that duty is.
In
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust (2002) the plaintiff, a 63
year old lady, was injured while she attended a summer fair hosted by the
defendants. During the fair the plaintiff had participated in some of the
activities and as a result of the defective equipment that was provided, she sustained
injuries. The plaintiff sued. Under normal circumstances the matter would be
covered by public liability insurance but in this instance the insurance policy
of the contractors who provided the equipment had expired 4 days prior to the
fair, and the contractors had failed to renew it.
The
court held that under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 there was a duty that
was imposed on organizers to ensure that the contractors they employed had
suitable insurance coverage and the court found that the defendants had been
negligent by failing to ensure that their contractors had suitable insurance
coverage. The plaintiff was successful.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment