|
Occupiers' Liability In English Law
Occupiers' liability is a field of tort law, codified in statute, which concerns the duty of care owed by those who occupy real property, through ownership or lease, to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises. In English law, occupiers' liability towards visitors is regulated in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. In addition, occupiers' liability to trespassers is provided under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Although the law largely codified the earlier common law, the difference between a "visitor" and a "trespasser", and the definition of an "occupier" continue to rely on cases for their meaning. Who is an occupier? Neither Occupiers' Liability Act defines "occupier". The definition must be sought in case law. The currently applicable test for the status of "occupier" is the degree of occupational control. The more control a person has over certain premises, the more ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort Law
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Assumption Of Risk
Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury. Primary vs. secondary "Primary" assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff knows about a particular risk and—through words or conduct—accepts that risk, thereby relieving the defendant of its duty of care. The primary assumption of risk defense operates as a complete bar to recovery. For example, someone who goes skiing assumes the risk that they will fall and break a bone and cannot sue a ski resort for such an injury in the absence of additional fault, such as the failure to properly maintain safety equipment. "Secondary" assumption of risk exists where the defendant has a continuing duty of r ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Folkestone Properties Ltd
''Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited'' (2003) (QB 1008; 2 WLR 1138; 3 All ER 1101) is an English court case heard in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales concerning the tort of occupiers' liability from the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Litigation The case was originally heard by His Honour Judge Bowers in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Here, the claimant succeeded, though was forced to concede his duty was owed to him under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which deals with trespassers, as opposed to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which deals with lawful visitors. The claimant also had his damages reduced by 75% due to his contributory negligence. The subsequent appeal from the defendant (against the imposition of a duty of care) was heard in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales by three Lords Justice of Appeal: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lord Justice Brooke, and Lord Justice Laws. Facts On Saturday, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council
''Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council'' 003UKHL 47is a 2003 court case in England from the House of Lords regarding the torts of negligence and occupiers' liability (the latter regarding the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984). It was a landmark case that has been regarded as an attempt to stem the development of a "compensation culture" in the UK. Litigation The case originated in the High Court of Justice, after which it proceeded to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. In the latter case, the Lords Justice of Appeal held in favour of Tomlinson, the claimant. However, this decision was reversed by the House of Lords. Facts In May 1995, the claimant, John Tomlinson (then aged 18), visited an artificial lake, part of a country park in Brereton, Cheshire in the borough of Congleton with his friends. While there, Tomlinson dived into the water and hit his head on the sandy bottom, leaving him tetraplegic as a result of a break to the fifth vertebra of his neck. He subsequentl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Gwilliam V West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS
''Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS'' 002EWCA Civ 1041; 003Q.B. 443 is an English tort law case concerning occupiers' liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. It also raises the question of whether the duty of care should encompass a duty to enquire into the insurance status of contractors for dangerous activities. Facts Ethel Gwilliam, age 63, went to an NHS organised fun fair, at Mount Vernon Hospital in Northwood, Middlesex, where there was a "splat wall". Waller LJ in his account of the facts described it as follows. "The aim of the apparatus was to allow the participant to bounce from a trampoline and adhere by means of Velcro material to a wall."003Q.B. 443, 451 In other words, you get dressed in a velcro costume, bounce on the trampoline and then go "splat" onto the wall. Unfortunately, Ms Gwilliam was injured, because the splat wall had been set up negligently. The hospital had got the splat wall through an independent contractor called "Club Entertainme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ratcliff V McConnell And Another
Ratcliff or Ratcliffe is a locality in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It lies on the north bank of the River Thames between Limehouse (to the east), and Shadwell (to the west). The place name is no longer commonly used. History Etymology and origin The name ''Ratcliffe'' derives from the small sandstone cliff that stood above the surrounding marshes, it had a red appearance, hence ''Red-cliffe''. Ratcliff was historically part of the Manor and Ancient Parish of Stepney. The place name Stepney evolved from ''Stybbanhyð'', first recorded around 1000 AD. ''Stybbanhyð'' probably translates into modern English as "Stybba's hithe (landing place)", with Stybba the individual who owned the Manor (estate). The hithe itself is thought to have been at Ratcliff, just under south of St Dunstan's Church. Civil and ecclesiastical administration The hamlet was divided between the parishes of Limehouse and Stepney until 1866, when it was constituted a separate civil parish (a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Titchener V British Railway Board
''Titchener v British Railway Board'' 9831 WLR 1427 is a Scottish delict case concerning occupiers' liability, decided by the House of Lords. Facts Miss Titchener, a 15-year-old girl, climbed through a gap in a fence onto a railway line owned by the British Railways Board. She was hit by a train. She sued the board under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 for failing in their common duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for visitors. The Inner House of the Court of Session held that the pursuer had taken a chance, fully aware of the risks involved and that the Board had no responsibility to maintain the fence any more than they had.Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, ''Tort Law: Text and Materials'' (OUP, 2008) 286, Judgment The House of Lords dismissed the claimant's final appeal, holding that she was not owed any duty under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 on the grounds that she had voluntarily decided to run the risk of walking on the railway lin ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Res Ipsa Loquitor
''Res ipsa loquitur'' (Latin: ''"the thing speaks for itself"'') is a doctrine in the common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In ''res ipsa loquitur'', the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. History The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself". The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech ''Pro Milone''. The circumstances of the genes ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ward V Tesco Stores Ltd
''Ward v. Tesco Stores Ltd.'' 9761 WLR 810, is an English tort law case concerning the doctrine of ''res ipsa loquitur'' ("the thing speaks for itself"). It deals with the law of negligence and it set an important precedent in so called "trip and slip" cases which are a common occurrence. Facts The plaintiff slipped on some pink yoghurt in a Tesco store in Smithdown Road, Liverpool Liverpool is a city and metropolitan borough in Merseyside, England. With a population of in 2019, it is the 10th largest English district by population and its metropolitan area is the fifth largest in the United Kingdom, with a populat .... It was not clear whether or not Tesco staff were to blame for the spillage. It could have been another customer, or the wind, or anything else. Spillages happened roughly 10 times a week and staff had standing orders to clean anything up straight away. As Lawton LJ observed in his judgment,at 814 ff. The trial judge had held in Mrs Ward's favour and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Wheat V E Lacon & Co Ltd
''Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd'' 9661 All ER 582 is a decision of the House of Lords concerning the definition of "occupier" for the purposes of Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The leading speech in the case was delivered by Lord Denning, during his short tenure as a Law lord. Facts The defendants were a brewery house. The managers of the brewery house, Mr and Mrs Richardson, lived on the premises and occupied a private portion there. Wheat, a paying guest, fell down the stairs of that private part of the premises and died, because there was no handrail on part of the stairs and someone had removed the lightbulb on the stairway. Mr Wheat's estate sued the brewery under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. Judgment The main legal issue before the House of Lords was whether the brewery fell within the scope of the Act as "occupier". The leading speech was delivered by Lord Denning. He defined the "occupier" as a person who has sufficient control over the premises to the extent that he ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Roles V Nathan
''Roles v. Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms)'' 9631 W.L.R. 1117, 9632 All E.R. 908 is an occupiers' liability case in English tort law. It concerns s.2(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which states, "An occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so." It also laid down an example of the scope of an occupier's defence when workmen are warned of some danger before they do a job at the occupier's premises. The judges in the Court of Appeal were Lord Denning MR, Harman LJ and (in dissent) Pearson LJ. Facts Two chimney sweeps were sealing up a sweep hole in a flue. Carbon monoxide came through. They had been warned repeatedly, and told not to stay in too long, and not to work while a fire was alight. Once already, they had been dragged out for not doing as they were told. They died while working when the fire was burning. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Phipps V Rochester Corporation , a mall in Buckhead, Atlanta
{{disambiguation ...
Phipps may refer to: *Phipps (surname) *Phipps, Wisconsin, an unincorporated community *Phipps Bridge tram stop, a halt on the Tramlink service in the London Borough of Merton *Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, buildings and grounds set in Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania *Phipps NBC, a brewing company based in Northampton, England *Phipps Plaza Phipps Plaza is a shopping mall in the Buckhead district of Atlanta, Georgia. It is located at the intersection of Peachtree Road ( SR 141) and Lenox Road (SR 141 Connector), adjacent to the Phipps Tower office building. The mall is currently ow ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
