CASES OLA 1957- lawful visitors
4 initial elements:
1. Wheat v Lacon (su'icient degree of control can be more than 1)
2. Lowery v Walker - Lawful visitor implied permission occupier didn’t stop ppl using short cut
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 s2.2
Laverton v Kiapasha – slip resistant tiles & mop, occupier measures to keep visitor reasonably safe on
premises for purposes of what they were invited to do
Variation 2.3 a: children
1. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation- allurement principle (poisonous berries =death)
2. Phipps v Rochester- parental supervision principle (trench = injured)
Variation 2.3b: experts/ professionals
Roles v Nathan – chimney sweeps expected to know carbon monoxide poisoning as special risk so occupier
not liable
Discharging the duty
S2.4a – warnings Cotton v Derbyshire Dales – cli' =obvious risk so no need for warning
S2.4b – fault of an IC
• Haseldine v Daw – landlord discharged duty to lift operator
• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club – occupier has duty to enquire about qualifications and
competence of an IC
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
4 initial elements:
1. Wheat v Lacon (su'icient degree of control can be more than 1)
2. Lowery v Walker - Lawful visitor implied permission occupier didn’t stop ppl using short cut
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 s2.2
Laverton v Kiapasha – slip resistant tiles & mop, occupier measures to keep visitor reasonably safe on
premises for purposes of what they were invited to do
Variation 2.3 a: children
1. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation- allurement principle (poisonous berries =death)
2. Phipps v Rochester- parental supervision principle (trench = injured)
Variation 2.3b: experts/ professionals
Roles v Nathan – chimney sweeps expected to know carbon monoxide poisoning as special risk so occupier
not liable
Discharging the duty
S2.4a – warnings Cotton v Derbyshire Dales – cli' =obvious risk so no need for warning
S2.4b – fault of an IC
• Haseldine v Daw – landlord discharged duty to lift operator
• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club – occupier has duty to enquire about qualifications and
competence of an IC
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
