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

Occupiers liability - Both Mike and Nigel will have a claim in the tort of occupiers liability. Occupiers liability concerns the liability of an occupier to the claimants injury, loss or damage to property

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Occupiers liability act question 4)b) Both Mike and Nigel will have a claim in the tort of occupiers liability. Occupiers liability concerns the liability of an occupier to the claimants injury, loss or damage to property suffered whilst on the occupiers premises. It is a land based tort, so need to prove that the defendant Ken is the occupier. An occupier is some one who has a sunstaintial degree of control over the premises. As regards Ken, we are told that he owns the gardens in which the swimming pool is situatied, meaning that he has control over the premises where both the accidents occurred, so he is the occupier. ...read more.

Middle

The duty is owed in premises which are either a fixed or movable structure s1(2). As the incident occurs in a swimming pool in Kens garden, this can be said to be premises. The circumstances in which the duty is owed to a trespasser are when the occupier Is aware or has reasonable grounds to believe a danger exists. Is aware or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity or they may come in to the vicinity of the danger The risk is one against which, in all circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. ...read more.

Conclusion

So the fact that Mike also climbs in the garden and the swimming pool as night shows that he ought reasonably to believe that he will be there, as others previously to him have done the same. Finally, Ken has offered some sort of protection against the risk by placing a cover over it when it wasn't in use. However, this part of the test is both subjective and objective, and the focus is on all the circumstances of the case. As Ken put the cover over the swimming pool to prevent people from swimming in the pool, the fact that Mike was injured shows ...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

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Looking more closely at football as a whole, claims have been made for injuries sustained on the pitch. However these cases are few and the nature of the injuries received would not only be enough to give liability in normal negligence cases, but are generally very severe instances or injury, perhaps career threatening.

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

    The judge can give an absolute discharge if they chose to do so, if we take in to account proportionality, this is still recognised in the sentence however the defendant would still be labelled as a murderer. In cases involving negligence, the neighbour principal, established in Donoghue v Stevenson is

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

    conviction of defendant being in possessions of drugs whereas in Sweet v Parsley1970 the defendant conviction was as she did not have the mens rea of the crime. A negative cause for strict liability is that the courts may also have a clack of clarity in some judgments in Warner

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    man's property whereby his neighbour's property is exposed to danger" (this can be seen in Ken's and Leonard's case) And also Interference with enjoyment of the property, the interference must be substantial in the sense that it must be "Materially interfering with the ordinary comfort, physically, of human existence not

  1. negligence in tort

    The defendant's were held liable in negligence because it was held that a duty of care was owed to him even though the illness he suffered was extremely rare. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant

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

    Cases can be appealed on points of law to the High Court (Queen's Bench Division) and appeals against conviction and sentence are made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Civil cases are heard firstly in the County Courts or the High Court, which is divided into three divisions: Queen's Bench, Family and Chancery.

  1. Occupiers Liability Act Case Study - Consider the theme parks potential liability in tort ...

    The defendants was said to be liable as they had the legal authority to control the premise and had been negligent in doing so. As Pierre cuts his arm badly on the sharp edge of the metal sheet on the Mad Maxx ride, he is said to have incurred physical

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

    Hence they were vicariously liable for Warren?s actions which they themselves could nothave known about. However, casual workers would not be considered an employee and hence the employer cannot he held liable for the torts commited by them (Carmichael v National Power)

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