• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Occupiers Liability Act Case Study - Consider the theme parks potential liability in tort for the loss sustained by Pierre and Luc in the situation above. How successful might any defences be?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Pierre and Danielle take their two boys, Luc (7 years old) and Jean (11 years old), to the Fawlty Towers World of Adventure for the day. As they pay and enter the theme park, there are notices displayed which state that visitors enter at their own risk. Pierre cuts his arm badly on the sharp edge of the metal seat on the Mad Maxx ride. Later in the afternoon, whilst the family is watching a parade through the park, Luc runs off and, ignoring warning signs, goes through a gate next to the Raging Rapids log flume ride and is injured by the machinery that operates the ride. Consider the theme park?s potential liability in tort for the loss sustained by Pierre and Luc in the situation above. How successful might any defences be? Occupiers Liability is where a person has reasonable control over the premise and hence owes a duty of care to the visitors under the OLA 1957. The common duty of care is to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there. ...read more.

Middle

In this case, Luc is a trespasser. Hence he is protected under the OLA 1984 which sets out the duties which occupiers have towards people who come on to their land without permission. It provides that there is a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that they do not suffer injury on the premise by reason of any danger due to the state of the premise or to the things done or omitted to be done by them. This is illustrated in the case of Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust. The claimant had been 11 years old at the time of the accident which gave rise to the case. He was climbing on an external fire escape, attached to a building at one of the Trust hospitals when he fell hitting his head and suffered brain damage, The Trust was liable but reduced the damages by two thirds for contributory negligence. The duty to trespassers only exists when the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable hrounds to believe that the trespasser us the vicinity of the danger The sish ...read more.

Conclusion

An alternative defence is the defence of contributory negligence is available by the virtue of s.2(3) which provides that circumstances relevant to the discharge of the duty of care and the want of care which would ordinarily be looked for in such a. As to Luc, it is a moot point whether or not the risk arises rom danger due to the state of the premises, and the analysis of Tomlinson v Congleton would be equally applicable here but it would be argues that knowing that people including children will be allowed into close proximity will amount to a danger due to the state of the premise as it did in Glasgow Corporation and Taylor. Assuming that there is relevant consideration since the 1957 act that provides a non exclusive eplanation of the circumsances relating to the discharge of the duty of care. It provides that in deciding what is reasonable an occupier must expect children to be less carefu than adults. Hence, the theme park may be liable in tort for the loss sustained by Pierre and Luc in the situation above however it is up to the courts discretion. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    the term "malice aforethought" has provided uncertainties therefore the House of Lords in R v Cunningham removed the uncertainties and mens rea in murder cases has come to mean an intention to kill or cause Grievous bodily harm (GBH). GBH means "really serious harm".

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    her will and yet she was still convicted for violating the exclusion order. It is clear that in these examples from the criminal law there is some liability being imposed in the absence of fault. These exceptions can also be found in civil law, although limited.

  1. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    them such as blasphemous libel and/or criminal cases for example Lemon and Gay New ltd (1979). The defendants were charged with the offence of blasphemous libel concerning 'an obscene poem and illustration homosexual acts performed on Christ's dead body. The defendants were convicted and appealed but the House of Lords

  2. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    However, concluding everything that has been discussed, one may question as to whether liability should depend upon fault? Some may argue yes, it is essential for the public, it proves that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions and it encourages businesses to be vigilant through deterrence.

  1. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    In deciding whether a private nuisance (of either type) has been committed by the defendant, the court will examine the activity complained of. They will weigh the nature of the kind and circumstances of the defendant's activity against the nature and extent of the interference caused to the claimant.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    The Chancery Division considers complex matters such as disputes about wills, trusts, bankruptcy, land law, intellectual property and corporate laws, and the Queen's Bench Division deals with other business matters including contracts, torts or land disputes. The Queen's Bench Division has some specialist sub-divisions, including a Commercial Court, which deals with large and complex business disputes.

  1. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    John relied on Brian?s advice, as he was his friend and because he thought Brian was giving him reasonable advice, which he took and then invested shares in the company. Under James Macnaughton all 6 factors have been proven and Brian would owe John a duty of care.

  2. That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on ...

    They are thus protected by the building safety legislations. This is justified as employers cannot evade responsibilities simply by classifying them as self-employed. Sometimes employers would choose to employ workers from agencies, they would thus not be liable for these type of workers as they are merely of a temporary nature.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work