Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acts of Parliament of predecessor states to the United Kingdom

Acts of English Parliament to 1601 Acts of English Parliament to 1641 Ordinances and Acts (War & Interregnum) to 1660 Acts of English Parliament to 1699 Acts of English Parliament to 1706 Acts of Parliament of Scotland Acts of Irish Parliament to 1700 Acts of Irish Parliament to 1800

Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom

1707–1719 | 1720–1739 | 1740–1759 1760–1779 | 1780–1800 | 1801–1819 1820–1839 | 1840–1859 | 1860–1879 1880–1899 | 1900–1919 | 1920–1939 1940–1959 | 1960–1979 | 1980–1999 2000–Present

Acts of the Scottish Parliament

Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament

Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly

Measures of the National Assembly for Wales

Orders in Council for Northern Ireland

United Kingdom Statutory Instruments

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 was created to legislate on aspects of occupiers' liability under English law that the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 had neglected. The Occupiers' Liability Act of 1957 outlined that a duty was owed to visitors; the Occupiers' Liability Act of 1984 outlines the duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers.

Mullis ^[1] outlines that originally a trespasser had to prove that he was intentionally or recklessly injured ^[2]. It was acknowledged in British Railways Board v Herrington^[3] that a duty to a trespasser was owed. However, the specific details were not outlined until the Occupiers' Liability Act of 1984.

The Act was first considered in White v. The Council of the City and District of St. Albans ^[4] It outlined that three criteria must be satisfied before an occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser. Under the Act, a duty arises if: (a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists; (b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in the vicinity or not); and (c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection. In White it was held that although the requirements of (a) had been satisfied, as the defendants knew of the existence of the danger, criterion (b) was not satisfied. They thus rejected the plaintiff's claim.

[edit] References

This article is uncategorized. Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles. (June 2008)