CASES OLA 1984- unlawful visitors/ trespassers
4 initial elements:
1. Wheat v Lacon (su'icient degree of control can be more than 1)
2. Calgarth - trespasser defined someone who doesn’t use the property in the ordinary way invited to
3. No case
4. Keown v Coventry – D not liable as due to C’s own dangerous actions fire escape, not an underlying
problem with D’s premises
Duty of care s1.3
Condition 1: aware of danger
Rhind v Astbury (didn’t know of fibreglass in lake not liable)
Ratcli: v McConnell (not liable trespasser injured by obvious risk/danger, well known swimming pools vary
depth)
Condition 2: reasonable to suspect trespassers
Donoghue v Folkestone (time and circumstances matter, didn’t expect swimmers middle december middle
night even though knew of trespassers in summer)
Condition 3: reasonable precaution/ protection to discourage trespassers
Tomlinson v Congelton (don’t have to protect against obvious dangers, trespassers must take responsibility)
Breach
Blyth – D expected to meet standard of reasonable person doing same activity
Variation of standard (Nettleship v Weston -learners, Mullins v Richards – children, Bolam v Friern Hospital-
professionals/ experts)
• RISK FACTORS:
• Hayley v London Electricity Board – likelihood of harm
• Paris v Stepney Borough Council- seriousness harm & special characteristics
• Bolton v Stone- cost & practicality / precautions
• Watt v Herts CC – social/public benefit (IGNORE IF NOT RELEVANT)
Causation
Factual causation – Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital (but for)
Legal causation – Wagon Mound (remoteness / foreseeability)
Defences
Froom v Butcher – contributory negligence (damages reduced according to their contribution)
Morris v Murray – consent (knew risk of injury and voluntarily accepted it)
4 initial elements:
1. Wheat v Lacon (su'icient degree of control can be more than 1)
2. Calgarth - trespasser defined someone who doesn’t use the property in the ordinary way invited to
3. No case
4. Keown v Coventry – D not liable as due to C’s own dangerous actions fire escape, not an underlying
problem with D’s premises
Duty of care s1.3
Condition 1: aware of danger
Rhind v Astbury (didn’t know of fibreglass in lake not liable)
Ratcli: v McConnell (not liable trespasser injured by obvious risk/danger, well known swimming pools vary
depth)
Condition 2: reasonable to suspect trespassers
Donoghue v Folkestone (time and circumstances matter, didn’t expect swimmers middle december middle
night even though knew of trespassers in summer)
Condition 3: reasonable precaution/ protection to discourage trespassers
Tomlinson v Congelton (don’t have to protect against obvious dangers, trespassers must take responsibility)
Breach
Blyth – D expected to meet standard of reasonable person doing same activity
Variation of standard (Nettleship v Weston -learners, Mullins v Richards – children, Bolam v Friern Hospital-
professionals/ experts)
• RISK FACTORS:
• Hayley v London Electricity Board – likelihood of harm
• Paris v Stepney Borough Council- seriousness harm & special characteristics
• Bolton v Stone- cost & practicality / precautions
• Watt v Herts CC – social/public benefit (IGNORE IF NOT RELEVANT)
Causation
Factual causation – Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital (but for)
Legal causation – Wagon Mound (remoteness / foreseeability)
Defences
Froom v Butcher – contributory negligence (damages reduced according to their contribution)
Morris v Murray – consent (knew risk of injury and voluntarily accepted it)
