4288158
Description
Flashcards by pavlina.hunt, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by pavlina.hunt
almost 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Glasgow Corporation v Taylor | A child playing in a park was poisoned by eating some attractive berries he took from a bush. Although the child was a trespasser in relation to the bush, the berries were seen as an allurement and therefore the child was to be treated as a licensee (or visitor) to whom a duty of care was owed. |
| Haseldine v Daw | A visitor was killed in a lift which had been repaired by a firm of specialist engineers on behalf of the occupier. Under s 2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act the defendant had reasonably entrusted the work of a technical nature to an independent contractor and therefore had not breached his duty of care to the visitor. |
| Jolley v Sutton LBC | A boy was injured in an unexpected way when he used a jack to lift an abandoned boat on the defendant's land. In applying the Wagon Mound (No 1) test of reasonable foreseeability, the type of accident was not too remote. The local authority occupier was liable for breach of duty to the child visitor. |
| Phipps v Rochester Corp | A five-year-old child, being looked after by an older sibling, was injured falling into a trench on the defendant's land. The occupier was entitled to expect that a child of tender years would be in the care of a responsible adult, so no duty of care had been owed. |
| Ratcliff v McConnell | Late one night, while drunk, the claimant was injured when he dived into the defendant's swimming pool, having climbed a wall and entered as a trespasser. There was no duty of care owed under the 1984 Act. The main reason for the decision was that, according to s 1(6), the plaintiff had voluntarily accepted the risk. |
| Revill v Newberry | The claimant was a vandal who had been shot through the door of an allotment shed by the occupier who was hiding inside. The damage resulted from an activity rather than the state of the premises, but even if the 1984 Act did not apply the common law duty of care could still support liability in negligence. The claimant was two-thirds contributorily negligent. |
| Roles v Nathan | Two chimney sweeps were killed by fumes from a boiler they had been sent to clean. Under s 2(3)(b) of the 1957 Act the deceased should have been expected to guard against the dangers inherent in their special calling: the occupier was not liable. |
| Tomlinson v Congleton DC | The claimant was seriously injured when he ignored warning signs and dived into the shallow end of a lake on the defendant's property. The defendant may have been aware of the danger and certainly was aware of the presence of the trespassers, but the risk was not one regarding which it was reasonable to expect protection. No duty arose because the injury stemmed from what the claimant had done, rather than the state of the premises. |
| Wheat v Lacon | A guest fell to his death down the stairs leading to guest rooms above a pub. The handrail was too short and an unknown stranger had recently removed the light bulb. There was a dispute over whether the occupier was the owner of the brewery or the licensee. It was held that the two were concurrent occupiers. However, there had been no breach of duty in this case owing to the act of the stranger. |
| Woodward v Mayor of Hastings | The steps leading into the defendant's school had been inadequately swept by an independent contractor and the plaintiff was injured when he slipped on them. Section 2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act did not operate to shift liability from the occupier to the contractor, because of the non-technical nature of the task. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.