* [Tort occupiers liability seminar] *
1. George has a season ticket for the Dragon theatre, which allows him to sit in any seat for any
performance. Last week he took his wife, Mildred, to the theatre with him. He bought a ticket for her.
He paid for one of the cheapest seats and they both noted that Mildred’s ticket stated that
‘customers must sit in the seat to which they have been allocated.’
After the interval, George and Mildred noticed that several of the more expensive seats in a better
part of the theatre were empty. Despite the notice on Mildred’s ticket, they moved to the better
seats. As they sat down, the seats collapsed. This was caused by a defective floor board that had not
been properly repaired. Mildred suffered a broken arm and her expensive dress was torn. George
suffered a broken leg.
The owners of the theatre, Dragon Ltd, have refused to compensate Mildred on the grounds that she
was not entitled to sit in the seat that collapsed. They have refused to compensate George because
the work on the defective floor board was not done by their own staff, but was carried out the week
before the accident by Floors-R-Us Ltd.
Advise George and Mildred as to their potential claims in tort.
• Introduction:
George and Mildred may be able to claim under occupiers liability for the damage sustained
as a result of the defective floor boards, under the OLA.
Discuss whether D is an Occupier (Wheat v Lacon – an occupier is a person who has a
‘sufficient degree of control over premises’ – Lord Denning)
Define premises - S.1(3)(a) OLA 1957 refers to premises as including ‘any fixed or moveable
structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.’ (maybe give some examples, Simkiss v
Rhondda BC (Mountains); Perry (bouncy castle); Ladder (Wheeler) – what is the premises in
this? The theatre, the seat, the floorboards – all would fall in, can be really small.
Distinguish between whether they are visitors and non-visitors – as you would then approach
the question differently as different acts are applicable.
• George:
Visitor – he has a season ticket, he can sit wherever he wants to – not going beyond his
permission.
Common law defines a ‘visitor’ as someone who has express or implied permission to be on
the premises. A visitor is an invitee (explicit invitation) or a licensee (i.e. postman, police)
Common duty of care has arisen automatically when he entered the theatre – s.2(1) OLA
1957.
Dragon theatre might try and argue that they have discharged their duty by engaging an
independent contractor s.2(4)(b)
o Gwilliam – occupier will discharge his duty if he has checked the competence of the
contractor by confirming their insurance status because insurance implies competence,
as insurers generally will not insure incompetent people – need more information for
this scenario.
o Haseldine v Daw – the more technical the work, the less likely it is that the occupier is
going to know if it has been done competently enough or not.
o Haseldine contrasts with Woodward v Mayor of Hastings – work was just clearing ice off
a step, so in this instance there was a greater onus on the occupier as not very
technical.
o In this scenario – floor board repair is quite technical so it might be difficult to claim as
it seems to suggest that they have successfully discharged their duty.
1. George has a season ticket for the Dragon theatre, which allows him to sit in any seat for any
performance. Last week he took his wife, Mildred, to the theatre with him. He bought a ticket for her.
He paid for one of the cheapest seats and they both noted that Mildred’s ticket stated that
‘customers must sit in the seat to which they have been allocated.’
After the interval, George and Mildred noticed that several of the more expensive seats in a better
part of the theatre were empty. Despite the notice on Mildred’s ticket, they moved to the better
seats. As they sat down, the seats collapsed. This was caused by a defective floor board that had not
been properly repaired. Mildred suffered a broken arm and her expensive dress was torn. George
suffered a broken leg.
The owners of the theatre, Dragon Ltd, have refused to compensate Mildred on the grounds that she
was not entitled to sit in the seat that collapsed. They have refused to compensate George because
the work on the defective floor board was not done by their own staff, but was carried out the week
before the accident by Floors-R-Us Ltd.
Advise George and Mildred as to their potential claims in tort.
• Introduction:
George and Mildred may be able to claim under occupiers liability for the damage sustained
as a result of the defective floor boards, under the OLA.
Discuss whether D is an Occupier (Wheat v Lacon – an occupier is a person who has a
‘sufficient degree of control over premises’ – Lord Denning)
Define premises - S.1(3)(a) OLA 1957 refers to premises as including ‘any fixed or moveable
structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.’ (maybe give some examples, Simkiss v
Rhondda BC (Mountains); Perry (bouncy castle); Ladder (Wheeler) – what is the premises in
this? The theatre, the seat, the floorboards – all would fall in, can be really small.
Distinguish between whether they are visitors and non-visitors – as you would then approach
the question differently as different acts are applicable.
• George:
Visitor – he has a season ticket, he can sit wherever he wants to – not going beyond his
permission.
Common law defines a ‘visitor’ as someone who has express or implied permission to be on
the premises. A visitor is an invitee (explicit invitation) or a licensee (i.e. postman, police)
Common duty of care has arisen automatically when he entered the theatre – s.2(1) OLA
1957.
Dragon theatre might try and argue that they have discharged their duty by engaging an
independent contractor s.2(4)(b)
o Gwilliam – occupier will discharge his duty if he has checked the competence of the
contractor by confirming their insurance status because insurance implies competence,
as insurers generally will not insure incompetent people – need more information for
this scenario.
o Haseldine v Daw – the more technical the work, the less likely it is that the occupier is
going to know if it has been done competently enough or not.
o Haseldine contrasts with Woodward v Mayor of Hastings – work was just clearing ice off
a step, so in this instance there was a greater onus on the occupier as not very
technical.
o In this scenario – floor board repair is quite technical so it might be difficult to claim as
it seems to suggest that they have successfully discharged their duty.
