Occupiers Liability Essay

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

Under the case of Hare v van Brugge [2013] NSWCA 74, the court had ruled that the dominant party (Van Brugge ) had the right under the clause “to go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes with or without animals or vehicles or both to and from the said dominant tenement or any such part thereof” without the rights being dictated by the servant party. Under this context it can be said that you have the right according to your easement too allow any person that is allowed to enter your property too “go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes with or without animals or vehicles or both to and from the said dominant tenement”. This means the use the inclinator is for the use of the dominant party until a breach of this easement

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.

Almost every jurisdiction a person is responsible for all losses and damages that result from his or her negligence. With certain exceptions owners, people who handles pets, and people that harbor pets can be held responsible for injuries caused by their pet. Negligence is also defined as the lack or ordinary care. An example of an unreasonable action would be a dog owner letting go of his dogs leash when another dog approaches so that the dogs can play. An unreasonable action might be the failure to keep a dog away from guest when it is prone to play rough or knock people down. Negligence is also considered when an adult places a watchdog in the room with a sleeping infant. If a person fails to protect a visitor from a potentially dangerous pet this falls under the doctrine of premises liability. Landlords, landowners and management companies can be held liable and responsible to their tenants failing to get rid of a vicious animal. The final example with the ferret this is an example of negligence. Any animal has the potential to be vicious if it exposed to new people or feels threatened. So if the homeowners have company it is best to keep the ferret in a cage or in a room with the door closed to avoid possible injuries to their guest. If the pet owner follows all necessary precautions an incident occurs then they will not be liable for the incident if one occurs.

Social host liability laws are enacted to hold hosts accountable for any alcohol related injuries that were the result of the host serving alcohol to minors (under the age of 21 for this discussion) or adults. Presently, the State of Setonia has no formalized common-law duty addressing social host liability. In light case recently heard in the Setonia Court where a clearly intoxicated driver struck a pedestrian after departing a social gathering, it was questioned if Setonia should seek to formulate a common-law duty for social host to prevent guests from departing a social gathering and driving while intoxicated, impaired, or under the influence of alcohol. Two court decisions, with markedly opposed decisions, from Delaware (Shea v. Matassa, 2007) and North Carolina (Hart v. Ivey, 1992), were reviewed in anticipation of the potential formulation of a common-law duty of a social host to prevent guests from departing a social gathering and driving while intoxicated, impaired or under the influence of alcohol.

this applies to all people within the UK. if anyone doesn't follow this law they will face charges. this law ensures that health and safety is kept everywhere. statutory law is like the legal side of the health and safety at work act (1974) this ensures that everyone is really following the health and safety at work act and not doing what they like.

The main legal issue covered in the Novakovic v Stekovic case is the tort of negligence followed with personal injury. In the appellant’s point of view, according to the Civil Liability Acts 2002 (NSW) the recognized duties of care include (7): the occupiers to visitors, tenants, even trespassers.(1) Hence the respondents must precaution all the potential risk which may cause injury to the visitors in their premises. For this point, the respondents admitted at trial that they owed the appellant a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury. So the issue followed up is: Did Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic breach their duty of care?

‘“Occupier of the premises (defendant) owes the same duty of care, the common duty of care to all visitors”

Instead of confining itself simply to the mischief which the statute was intended to correct, the court resolves ambiguities by reference to the statute’s overall purpose. Indeed, many modern statutes are not simply intended to correct mischiefs in the common law but have a wider social agenda. Under the purposive approach the courts should try to give effect to this wider statutory purpose in interpreting ambiguous provisions in statutes. For the purposive approach the example case can be Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993). Knowles was employed by the Council and was injured at work whilst handling a defective flagstone. He claimed damages from them under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The Council claimed that they were not liable as a flagstone could not be “equipment” within the Act. The House of Lords held that it could. The purpose of the statute was to protect employees from exposure to dangerous materials. The words “equipment” should be interpreted in this context. The Council were therefore liable for Knowles’ injuries (Paul, 2002).

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Andy is likely to be successful in court. Although the only express terms were that Andy would pay $400 for use of the paddocks for his horse, there is a potential implied term that the paddocks would be reasonably equipped to service the horse, especially given both parties understood that the horse would require grass and water during the time it was living in the paddock. As in Costa Vraca v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control, Doug

[R] The first is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who enters the land of another without the consent of the owner. The only duty a landowner owes a trespasser is to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich.App. 1,4, 840 N.W.2d 401, 404 (2013). [R] The second status is a licensee. A licensee is a person, such as a social guest, that has the landowner’s permission to enter the land. Id. at 4, 840 N.W.2d at 404.The duty a landowner has to a licensee is to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers that the landowner is aware or should have awareness of, if the danger is not open or obvious. Id. at 5, 840 N.W. 2d at 404. “Social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit.” Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 592, 614 N.W.2d 88,91-92 (2000). [R]The last status of those entering the property of another is a business invitee. Because of the business context, the landowner has an additional duty that extends beyond that of the duty to a licensee. The landowner has an obligation to inspect the premises as to any dangers and, if

The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

An explanation will be made on how the current law addresses the imposition of a duty of care on public bodies. An evaluation will then be made to determine whether the duty of care the police owe to protect individuals from a known threat should be legally recognised.