Children are to be treated as being less careful than adults, and as such more care must be taken when children are to be allowed onto premises.
The Act does provide for volenti, in that the Victim may, through agreement, accept risk.
Warning signs may be used to warn people that an area is dangerous, and thus absolve themselves of liability. However, these warnings must be large and very obvious, in an area where they will be seen, and be easily understood.
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
This act merely covers personal injury to persons other than visitors. This means that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that premises are safe for trespassers. The Act calls them non-visitors. A person who is neither a visitor nor a trespasser seems to be in narrow areas such as persons with a right of way over land, which is not visiting nor trespassing.
The 1984 Act allows, like the ’57 Act, for warnings.
The occupier becomes liable when he knows of a trespasser or when he has reasonable belief that one will trespass on his land. This creates both an objective and subjective test, which causes confusion. There has only been one case taken to the Lords.
Special Calling:
When one is in a profession that has inherent dangers, it is incumbent upon that person to ensure that they are protected:
Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117
The Plaintiff’s were the widows of two chimney sweeps. The deceased sweeps had both been warned a number of times about the dangers of CO poisoning, but had failed to take appropriate safety checks. They died as a result.
Lord Denning MR kicked out the claim as he said that they should have known better, especially after being warned so many times.