Tort Law
Extract 1 : Liability
of FFL in respect of broken leg at construction site
Extract 2 : Liability
of FFL in respect of carousel injury and damage to property
Extract 3
: Liability of the Globe newspaper
Liability of FFL in respect of carousel injury and damage to property
The girl who was hurt and whose property was damaged may have a claim as above.
Visitor or non-visitor?
FFL could either be liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 57),
or the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 84) depending upon whether the injured
child is classified as a visitor or a non-visitor. On the facts, "the boys
broke away from the party and climbed over a chain link security fence… (that)
had a large red sign stating 'Danger Construction Site - Keep Out". It is
therefore highly likely that the injured boy would be classified as a trespasser,
thus OLA 84 will apply. On the facts, the girl was "on the platform of the
carousel" which was a ride. As FFL operated an "amusement park"
it is implicit that the visiting children had under S.1(2) "invitation or
permission… to enter or use the premises" for the purposes intended. It is
therefore highly likely that the injured girl would be classified as a visitor,
thus OLA 57 will apply.
Definitions
"Premises"
for the purposes of OLA 84 are defined as set out under S.1(3)(a) of OLA 57, namely
"any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft".
On the facts, "a barn" would clearly fall within the definition as it
is a fixed structure.
"Occupiers" for the purposes of OLA 84 are
defined as set out under S.1(2) of OLA 57, namely persons having "occupation
or control of premises". On the facts, FFL would clearly fall within the
definition as they have control of the barn.
"Visitor" for the purposes
of OLA 84 are defined as set out under S.1(2) of OLA 57, namely persons having
"invitation or permission… to enter or use the premises". On the facts,
the injured boy would clearly fall without the definition as the sign on the fence
makes it clear that no invitation or permission to enter or use the construction
site is given. He is therefore a non-visitor.
Heads of loss
If the injured girl wishes to take action against FFL she will most likely do
it via a "litigation friend" as described above. The appropriate head
of loss under which a claim will be made will be personal injury for her hurt.
In addition, she will claim for damaged property comprising the broken mobile
telephone, the broken new watch and the spoiled jacket. In order to make a successful
claim, the Claimant must prove all the components as outlined above, and overcome
any defences raised by the defendant FFL.
Was a Duty of Care owed by
FFL to the Claimant?
Under S.2(1) of OLA 57: "an occupier owes the
same duty, the "common duty of care" to all his visitors, except in
so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict and modify or exclude his duty
to any visitor". Under S.1(3)(b) of the act the duty includes "the property
of persons". The shrewd lawyer will check to see whether restrictions or
exclusions apply to playing on the carousel.
What is the extent of the
Duty?
Under S.2(2) OLA 57 there is a "duty to take such care as in
all the circumstances of the case as is reasonable to see that the visitor will
be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited
or permitted by the occupier to be there". This will include the purpose
of using the rides.
Breach
The potential breach of FFL's duty is
a failure to ensure the girl was safe. On the facts "some spilled oil had
not been properly removed". The state of the premises will be considered
although on the facts it "has enjoyed good safety records". Under S.2(3)(a)
"an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults"
and it is significant that oil had been left where children were expected to play 1 . Under S.2(4)(b) if "the company FFL
usually employed" were independent contractors FFL must have acted reasonably
in entrusting work to them, taken reasonable steps to ensure their competence
and taken reasonable steps to ensure the work was properly done . 2
Causation of harm
As above. Both types are probably proved. On the
facts, the spilled oil was responsible for "causing the accident".
Defences
As above.
All three are highly unlikely to succeed here.
Conclusion
As above.
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] A.C. 448[^ Return]
- Haseldine
v CA Daw & Son [1941] 2 K.B. 343[^ Return]
Bibliography
CASES:
Barnet v Chelsea & Kensington Hosp. MC [1969] 1 Q.B. 428;
[1968] 2 W.L.R. 422
Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] A.C. 448
Haseldine
v CA Daw & Son [1941] 2 K.B. 343
Newstead v London Express [1940] 1 K.B.
377
Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 W.L.R. 670
Ratcliff v McConnell [1999]
1 W.L.R. 670
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 at 1240
Yachuk v Oliver
Blais [1949] A.C. 386
Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v Henty & Sons (1882)
7 App. Cas. 741
UK LEGISLATION:
The Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act 1945
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
The Occupiers'
Liability Act 1984
Extract 1 : Liability
of FFL in respect of broken leg at construction site
Extract 2 : Liability
of FFL in respect of carousel injury and damage to property
Extract 3
: Liability of the Globe newspaper
Legal Notice - None of our work is to be passed off as your own or as anyone else's, nor is it to be reproduced either in whole or in part. This a breach of copyright. It also constitutes plagiarism and will breach University Regulations, consult your guidelines if you are unsure. If we suspect that any law essays or materials are being used for such purposes then we will refuse to carry out that work and all future essay work for the person involved.
Refund Policy : Law Essays UK has a strict no refund policy due to the highly specialised and individual nature of the services we provide. Our services are provided as is, and accordingly the customer orders on their own initiative. However, for your peace of mind, we guarantee that if you are not satisfied with an essay, for whatever reason, then we can amend it accordingly to your specifications. In addition, under our crystal clear guarantee, we will clarify anything contained within an essay or study material free of charge
Note: We offer a wholly independent law and legal research service. We are not affiliated with the Bar Council or any other organisation in any other way. Nor are they affiliated with us. We regret that we are unable to take on work from members of the public and businesses outside of doing model answers as law essays, legal essays, research and tutoring as to do so would contravene Bar Council regulations. All research services and materials offered are subject to availability. 5 day completion for law essays of 5,000 words or less only. All services are subject to availability. All trademarks and copyrights of other bodies and organisations are recognised and respected.
Visitors have also looked at...
1Law Essay Scams
Essay writing scams can be hard to spot.
Click here to find out how to avoid the essay scams2Essay writing in the press
Find out what the press say about essay writing in the 21st century.
3 Meet the Law Essays UK Team
Find out more about the individuals that provide this first class essay writing service.
Law Essays UK - world's only dedicated personalised law model answers service.
