occupeier liabilityyqjhjs
- Created by: swamp
- Created on: 01-05-23 13:46
View mindmap
- Evaluation of occupier's liability
- 1984 Act is limited to personal injury only
- Tomlinson v Congelton DC- justified that trespassers aren't entitled to complete safety
- 2 different approaches to the imposition of a duty
- 1984 Act is subjective and inconsistent (eg Donohogue- unusal liability can depend on the time of day)
- no obligation under 84 Act to check for danger (Rhnid) as it requires knowledge of the danger
- occupier's reasonableness will be judged but not for 57 Act
- gives tresspasses a right to sue but judges have found reasons to block this, reflecting public opinion
- eg obvious dangers (Ratcliff v McConnel)
- fair visitors can claim compensation but may lead to a culture of suing over simple accidents (Rochester Cathedral)
- public opinion supports that trespasssers must take full responisbility for their own actions
- 1984 Act is limited to personal injury only
Comments
No comments have yet been made