Page Break
Part A
Instructions:
Please prepare an oral presentation explaining the issues below. Advise:
Whether Ryder may have a claim against The Seaview Hotel under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Occupiers liability allows the claimant to sue the occupiers of the property where the incident occurred.
These rules are set out in two statutes: The occupiers Liability Act 1957 (OLA 57) covers lawful visitors, and the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (OLA 84) covers liability to non-visitors. –
To make a claim for compensation under the Occupiers Liability Act 57 we must first establish when the duty of care is owed, one of which was who is the Occupier defined by OLA 57.
WHO IS THE OCCUPIER? Section 1 (2)OLA 57 does not define who is the occupier but its mention that it is someone who at common law would be treated as the occupied and with sufficient degree of control.
In the OLA 57, they are not a true definition of the word ‘premises’ that are contained in the statues 1(3)(a) OLA 1957 refers premises to any fix or moveable structure, which includes a lift (as in the case of Haseldine v Daw) therefore we can establish that the lift where the accident took place would be considered the ‘premises’ for the purpose of this act.
We have identified that the injury occurred in the lift, therefore its now possible to establish which company is the occupier and therefore bares the potential liability for the injuries which Ryder sustained.
Section 1(2) OLA 57 states an occupier is someone ‘who would at common law be treated as an occupier’, According to Wheat v Lacon LTD an occupier is someone with a level of control to the part of the premises where the injury occurred.
This person does not need to be an actual occupation of the premises to be the occupier (Harris v Birkenhean Corporation) However from the facts of the case Electrics and Lifts only serviced the lift and did not hold a lease or contract with The seaview Hotel. Therefore, it is easy to establish that ‘The seaview hotel’ are the occupier and bares the responsibility of the injuries which Ryder sustained.
Who is a lawful visitor?
Whether Ryder and his mother were Lawful guest?
For the purpose of the OLA 57 The common duty of care is owed to anyone who is a lawful visitor of the premises. Ryder and his mother were guest to The Seaview hotel premises therefore they has express permission as guest to The seaview Hotel.
THIRD PART Danger due to the state of the premises?
For the OLA 57 to apply we must also prove that the injury occur due to a defect on the premises, also the state of the premises must present a foreseeable risk W Sussex CC v Pierce [2013] EWHC 2030. Applying this to the fact of the case is that the defect was due to the state of the premises as the
Section 1 OLA 57 the common duty of care Is owed to any lawful guest in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises. The OLA 57 s.2 (3) (a) states that occupiers should expects and be prepared that children may be less careful but must be able to rely on the supervision of parents and carers as in the case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450
Knowledge of the danger
Generally there will be no liability for harms caused where independent contractors have done faulty work on the premises as long as occupier has acted reasonably in entrusting the work to them (s 2(4)(b)).
Whether Ryder may have a claim in negligence against Electrics and Lifts.
What damages Ryder could be entitled to if he is successful in either claim.
Whether Jack Roberts may have a claim against the hotel under the principle of vicarious liability.
