Occupiers' Liability
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, other than breach of contract, 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 crime, 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 (crime), 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 (legal system), civil law jurisdictions largely d ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |
|
Causation In English Law
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law. In the English law of negligence, causation proves a direct link between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s loss and damage. For these purposes, liability in negligence is established when there is a breach of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant that causes loss and damage, and it is reasonable that the defendant should compensate the claimant for that loss and damage. 'But for' causation The basic test for establishing causation is the "but for" (or counterfactual) test in which the defendant will be liable only if the claimant’s damage would not have occurred "but for" his negligence. An alternative formulation of the test: a defendant will not be liable if the damage would (or could on the balance of probabilities) have occurred anyway, regardl ... [...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 subseque ... [...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 line. ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |
|
Res Ipsa Loquitor
''Res ipsa loquitur'' (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in 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. The crux of ''res ipsa loquitur'' is circumstantial inference. 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 defe ... [...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. 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 she was awarded £137.50 in damages. Tesco appealed. Judgment It was held by a majority ( Lawton LJ and Megaw LJ) that even though it could not be said exactly what happened, the pink yoghurt being spilled spoke for itself as to who was to blame. Tesco ... [...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 MR. 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 Court of Appeal An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to Hearing (law), hear a Legal case, case upon appeal from a trial court or other ... was whe ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |
|
Roles V Nathan
''Roles v Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms)'' 9631 WLR 1117, 9632 All ER 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 wido ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |
|
Phipps V Rochester Corporation
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 Phipps Northampton Brewery Company Ltd has a long and varied history of brewing real ale and stout. It is based in Northampton, England. Early brewing history The company began in the South Northamptonshire town of Towcester where founder Pic ..., a brewing company based in Northampton, England * Phipps Plaza, a mall in Buckhead, Atlanta {{disambiguation ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |
|
Robert Addie & Sons (Colliery) Ltd V Dumbreck
The name Robert is an ancient Germanic given name, from Proto-Germanic "fame" and "bright" (''Hrōþiberhtaz''). Compare Old Dutch ''Robrecht'' and Old High German ''Hrodebert'' (a compound of '' Hruod'' () "fame, glory, honour, praise, renown, godlike" and ''berht'' "bright, light, shining"). It is the second most frequently used given name of ancient Germanic origin.Reaney & Wilson, 1997. ''Dictionary of English Surnames''. Oxford University Press. It is also in use as a surname. Another commonly used form of the name is Rupert. After becoming widely used in Continental Europe, the name entered England in its Old French form ''Robert'', where an Old English cognate form (''Hrēodbēorht'', ''Hrodberht'', ''Hrēodbēorð'', ''Hrœdbœrð'', ''Hrœdberð'', ''Hrōðberχtŕ'') had existed before the Norman Conquest. The feminine version is Roberta. The Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish form is Roberto. Robert is also a common name in many Germanic languages, including Eng ... [...More Info...]       [...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]   |