This answer concerns the liability of Mick under

This reply concerns the liability of Mick under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts. The Occupiers’ Liability 1957 and 1984 Acts ( OLA ) apply to those who are in sufficient control of a premises ( s.1 ( 2 ) 1957 Act ) . Mick is hosting this event, so he is in control and the act applies to him which means he has a responsibility of attention to his visitants and others ( OLA 1957 s.1 ( 3 ) ( B ) ( their belongings as good ) [ 1 ] s.2 ( 1 ) ) . [ 2 ] The OLA 1957 s.2 ( 2 ) describes a responsibility to take such attention as is all in the fortunes of the instance sensible to see that a visitant will be moderately safe” . The 1957 Act applies to liability to lawful visitants and the 1984 Act to applies to liability with respect to improper visitants. [ 3 ]

I ) Freeloader falls under the class ‘unlawful’ visitants, as he does non hold Mick’s permission to be at that place, holding non paid for a ticket. [ 4 ] He is hence an improper visitant in this sense. Freeloader may reason he is licensee because he is used to deriving admittance to the festival without the purchase of a ticket. [ 5 ] On the facts this would be a weak statement, as they do non mirror the Lowery instance plenty. [ 6 ] The tribunal will find whether there is a breach of responsibility from its reading of the facts.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

S.1 ( 3 ) of the 1984 Act says an resident owes a responsibility of attention Freeloader as a non-visitor if:

  1. He is cognizant of the danger or has sensible evidences to believe it exists ; and
  2. He knows or has sensible evidences to believe that the non-visitor is in the locality of the danger or may come into the locality of the danger ; and
  3. The hazard is one against which, in all the fortunes, he may moderately be expected to offer the non-visitor some protection.

The danger in this instance, is the possible harm the crisp fencing subdivisions could make. Arguably, Mick is cognizant of the danger, as he is likely to hold instructed Jobsworth to construct a fencing that would be a hindrance to intruders. Condition ( a ) is satisfied for the most portion. He besides knows ( ( B ) ) that a non-visitor such a freeloader is likely to come into the locality of the danger. Arguably Mick does non fulfill ( degree Celsius ) , because the intent of the fencing is maintaining people out, non doing it easier for them to acquire in. The grounds suggests Mick would non be apt for the harm to Freeloader’s finger or coat. Mick may besides be able to reason that Freeloader is conducive negligent ( volenti non fit injuria ) pursuant to s.2 ( 5 ) ( 7 ) of the 1957 Act as in the Simms V Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd instance. [ 7 ] The tribunals may hold its different reading of the facts. The facts do non propose Jobsworth negligently completed the work or that Mick did non moderately intrust the work to Jobsworth. S.2 ( 4 ) would non supply Mick a defense mechanism if he were found apt.

two ) Moondance is a lawful visitant. The facts do non propose a ground why she does non hold permission to be at the festival. Mick is responsible for her undertaking the serious disease because he breached his responsibility under Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] AC 502 rules, by leting the cowss to crop in the field merely before the festival. Arguably this would non be the action of a sensible host ( Blyth v Birmingham waterworks [ 1856 ] 11 Exch 781 ) . Mick’s breach of responsibility can be illustrated by using the ‘but for’ trial outlined by Lord Denning, in Cork V Kirby Maclean Ltd [ 1952 ] 2 All ER 402.

“But for Mick leting the cattles to crop prior to the festival, Moondance would non hold contracted this serious disease” .

The harm was moderately foreseeable, using The Wagon Mound [ 1961 ] AC 388 instance, because this disease can merely be transmitted by cowss and the bare clay sliding is likely something that has occurred over the 10 old ages, the festival has been held. Mick is likely to be held apt for his breach of responsibility of attention to Moondance.

three ) s.2 ( 3 ) ( B ) of the 1957 Act provides that:

“An occupier may anticipate that a individual, in the exercising of his naming will appreciate and guard against any particular hazards normally incident to it, so far as the resident leaves him free to make so”

Mick has appeared to go forth Mucus free. We are told that Mucus set up all their ain equipment and therefore if they did non put up the equipment decently, they would be responsible for Flick’s and Mick Snot’s burning. Mick would merely be excluded from any liability if the electrical installations he provided were non faulty. Mick should reason that in puting up the equipment Mucus failed to guard against the particular hazard of executing. Roles v Nathan [ 1963 ] 1 WLR 1117, Woolins v British Celanese Ltd [ 1966 ] 1 KIR 438 and Bird v King line Ltd [ 1970 ] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349, were all instances which demonstrated this point. Mucus’ carelessness in puting up is likely to hold broken the concatenation of causing if it found that the electric installations were defective anyhow. It would amount to an novus actus intervienens. [ 8 ] Jones indicates, s.1 ( 1 ) of the Law Reform ( Contributory Negligence ) Act 1945 would use if Mick is found apt, nevertheless the amendss would be apportioned if it found Mucus were careless for their ain safety. [ 9 ] Knightly v Johns [ 1982 ] provided an illustration of where this happened.Rogers composing in Winfield & A ; Jolowicz agrees with this proposition. [ 10 ] On the facts Mick will non be apt for the burning and any liability would be attributed to Mucus.



Rogers, W, “Winfield & A ; Jolowicz on Tort” , ( London, Sweet & A ; Maxwell, 2002, 16ThursdayEdition )

Jones, M, “Textbook on Torts” ( Oxford University Press, 2002, 8ThursdayEdition )


Addie ( Robert ) and Sons ( Colleries ) Ltd v Dumbreck [ 1929 ] AC 358

Bird V King line Ltd [ 1970 ] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 34

Blyth V Birmingham waterworks [ 1856 ] 11 Exch 781

Cork V Kirby Maclean Ltd [ 1952 ] 2 All ER 402

Donoghue V Stevenson [ 1932 ] AC 502

Knightly 5 Johns [ 1982 ] 1 All ER 851

Lowery V Walker [ 1911 ] AC 10

Functions v Nathan [ 1963 ] 1 WLR 1117

Simms V Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd [ 1969 ] 2 All ER 923

The Wagon Mound [ 1961 ] AC 388

Woolins v British Celanese Ltd [ 1966 ] 1 KIR 438


Occupiers’ Liability 1957

Occupiers’ Liability 1984

Law Reform ( Contributory Negligence ) Act 1945

Global insurance programmes remain a key part<< >>In Sidaway v Board of Governors of Benthlem

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.