TOPIC 4:
OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY Occupier’s liability forms part of the liability arising from the occupation of premises. It is therefore related to nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, breach of statutory duty and basic negligence. Occupier’s liability covers liability for damage (usually personal injury) which occurs to entrants on to the premises of the defendant. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, Barbados and Jamaica have enacted statutes substantially similar to the English Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
Barbados: Occupiers Liability Act, Cap. 208
Jamaica: Occupiers Liability Act 1969 (Vol. Xiii, Laws of Jamaica) All other jurisdictions apply the common law rules, but it has been said that the Occupiers Liability Acts could be regarded as
…show more content…
an unrailed plank on a ship might be an unusual danger for a passenger, but not for a seaman.
Indermaur v Dames (1866)
Principle: ‘invitee’ was defined in this case as a person who enters premises ‘upon business which concerns the occupier, and upon his invitation, express or implied.’
Harripersad v Mini Max Ltd (1978) (T&T)
The plaintiff was shopping in the defendants’ supermarket when she slipped and fell to the ground injuring her knee. It was proved that the plaintiff had fallen in a part of the store where water, dripping from an air conditioner, had collected on the floor. The defendants had placed sheets of newspaper on the floor to absorb the water but, after some time, the paper became saturated and the water continued to collect there. The floor itself was made of terrazzo tiles, which were known to have a very smooth surface, and the presence of the water made it ‘slippery and potentially dangerous to customers’.
Held: the plaintiff’s fall was caused by the wet floor, which was an unusual danger known to the defendants, who were therefore liable in negligence.
“The question of whether an existing state of affairs rendering premises dangerous is to be considered unusual or not depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case..the condition of the floor...amounted to...an unusual danger...The danger with which the plaintiff was there confronted that morning was not only unusual, it was...one of which the defendants were fully
It is the POCA section 340 that defines the criminal offences i.e. in the case of ML the predicate offence. This is confirmed as “criminal conduct which constitutes an offence in any part of the UK or would constitute an offence in the UK if it occurred there”. This is an important aspect in that local legislation and laws apply in that whilst the activity may be legal in another jurisdiction if it is performed by a UK resident it will be deemed a crime and therefore any proceeds deemed criminal. By way of an example, Rudi Fortson states that in Spain, bull fighting is deemed lawful but viewed as unlawful under UK law (Protection of Animals act 1911). In this scenario, it could be deemed a predicate offence with the proceeds criminal property.
“The imposition of structural adjustment programs in the Third World since the 1970s has been characterized as a war against the poor, a process of [neo] recolonization” (Turner, 1994: 37). This statement is particularly applicable to the country of Jamaica. The island has been susceptible to a variety of neocolonial acts including the presence of multinational corporations, structural adjustment programs, and loan organizations that have sucked Jamaica’s economy dry. This neocolonial presence has devastated the population in more ways than one. It is apparent that neocolonialism has had and continues to have a large impact on society as a whole in Jamaica. This
The risk need only be of some harm – not of serious harm, LARKIN (1943). An act aimed at property can still be such that a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm, GOODFELLOW (1986). There must be a risk of physical harm; mere fear is not enough, DAWSON (1985). The unlawful act must cause the death. The normal rules of causation apply; the act must be the physical and legal cause of death.
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if:
In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.
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?
2. Leanne: As a tenant who rent her parents theatre for one week, also the one that is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises, she is also consider being the occupier. For Leanne’s case, if she is below 18, then the contract between her and her parents are invalid, then she could not be sued. Otherwise she should be going through the following 4+3 negligence analysis as same as her parents.
“A trespass occurs and liability is imposed with any intentional invasion of an individual’s right to the exclusive use of his or her own property.” (McAdams, 2009)
Landlords and business owners owe a duty to their tenants and patrons for foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are committed on The approach to premises liability is based on the relationship between the parties at the time of injury. (ROWE) As the legal status of the visitor improves, the possessor of the land owes more of an obligation of protection. (ROWE). In Rowe, where an officer was injured while checking a vacant building, the court ruled that the landowners had a duty even though the officer was aware of the condition. The court reasoned in Rowe that the officer had the status of an licensee and the landowner owed a duty to warn of any dangerous conditions that the landowner new of or had reason to know and of which the officer
The second argument will be delivered by Beatrice where her account of the occurrences will be reviewed, along with possible claims and remedies available to her. Crucial acts which may be of great use to Beatrice will also be referenced, in order to strengthen her case against the defendant Macgregor hotel.
powerful set of laws within the country. According to Section 2 of Chapter 1 of the Jamaican
[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
It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices. Barbara Wootton (Crime and Criminal Law:
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law
“A supreme court of high calibre has been established in the Caribbean which would be able to…develop a modern Caribbean jurisprudence in an international context…All possible steps should be taken to encourage the Caribbean to accept the jurisdiction of their own supreme court…”