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. The first category of entrant is that of a contractual entrant. This class of entrant is defined by McMahon and Binchy as someone who enters “premises in pursuance of a contract between himself or herself and the occupier” . The classic examples of this category include sports spectators and concert goers. The duty owed to this type of entrant was found in the terms of the contract. If no such terms existed, as stated in the Law Reform Commission, “there is an implied term on the part of the occupier that he has taken reasonable care to make the premises safe for the contemplated purposes” . An example of implying terms can be found in the case of Callaghan v Killarney Race Course . The case centred around an injury suffered by a spectator at the races and whether the occupiers had acted with reasonable care. Maguire CJ noted that “There were no terms of contract between him and the defendant Company and the contract between them is to be implied from the circumstances of the case.” The Supreme Court dismissed the case as it was felt... ... middle of paper ... ...rts (4th edition Bloomsbury Professional, Dublin 2013)435 McMahon and Binchy, Law of Torts (4th edition Bloomsbury Professional, Dublin 2013)435 Latham v Johnson [1913] 1 KB 398 Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909] AC 229 Donovan v Landy Ltd [1963] IR 441 Donovan v Landy Ltd [1963] IR 441 at 446 Purtill v Athlone UDC [1968] IR 205 Purtill v Athlone UDC [1968] IR 205 at 212 McNamara v ESB [1975] IR 1 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 , s. 1(1) Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] A.C. 44 Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 [1929] AC 358 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] 1 AII ER at 795 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] 1 AII ER at 795 Redford v Courtown(Co Wexford) Golf Club Rooney v Connolly [1987] ILRM 768 Occupiers’ Liability 1995, s 1(1)
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
Corporate crime (state crimes) are invisible, they are either not persecuted or not seen as crime, this is because the state have the power to criminalize or decriminalize acts . The Hillsborough disaster is one of the most serious crimes in the UK which was not seen as a crime but rather labelled as an accidental death. This essay will present the facts and highlight the various legal issues with regards to the Hillsborough disaster that took place on 15 April 1989. It will first of all state the facts of the event, engaging the international human rights provision, domestic legislation and will further analyse the access to justice doctrine as regards to the Hillsborough case.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
E.P. Thompson wrote of the enclosures, "Enclosures (when all the sophistication's are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery, played according to the fair rules of property and laid down by parliament of property owners and lawyers."
The first element to examine is that of possible benefit to society. In Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Force , the claimant found information relating to a murder of a police officer. They reported it, but the file of the report given was stolen. The couple received violent threats after this occurred. In this case, a duty was established, it was done so in order to protect future informers, to ensure people will come forward. If no liability had been placed it would be detrimental, as informers would be less likely to come forward. This case is then distinguished into a type of negligence referred to as ‘direct action’ cases . It relates to deterrence, as well since it places this liability in order to protect informers and thereby to make sure this kind of negligence does not occur again from the police. It is a somewhat rare example where a duty of care is established. Another element of practical consideration is that of resources. The other main case for police negligence is Osman v Ferguson . In this case, a 14-year-old boy was being stalked by his schoolteacher. It came so to the point where the schoolteacher came to the claimant’s house and killed his father and injured the boy. The police had been called on several occasions, but failed to act before it went out of control. It had proximity and reasonable foreseeability however; it was
Task 4: Applications of Essential Legal Elements for a Valid Contract. Scenario 1: Madison v Edinburgh City Council In Madison v Edinburgh City Council, Mr Madison, a council tenant, applied to purchase his council house from the council. He received a letter from Edinburgh City Council saying they ‘may be prepared to sell the house to you’ for £2180.00. Mr Madison said that the path to the house was in a bad state and queried the price had stated.
Occupier's Liability Objective The objective of this document is to outline the obligations of the RSPB, as occupier of property. The obligations are set out in two Occupier's Liability Acts 1957 and 1984, and are owed to persons who enter RSPB property either as licensed visitors, or as unlicensed trespassers. The document does not purport to cover every particular situation and those in any doubt should consult Legal and Compliance as to secure their own position. Overview The RSPB owns large quantities of real estate, including many public reserves. It also owns many offices to which employees have access.
Case law has made it clear that Damien can only be liable for an attempt if they act with the intention of committing the main offence. Recklessness as to the consequence is not enough. Damien’s intention was established when he tried to enter the house but only had partial entry. The evidence against him is on the 6th day of December 2017 attempted to enter a dwelling, namely 20 Routledge Street, as a trespasser with intent to steal therein. Based on the facts of R v Brown [1985] the critical question is had the entry been “effective”.
In most of the cases, there was no sufficient connection to justify the imposition of liability. In particular, mere opportunity to commit the assaults was not enough. Before the House of Lords decision in Lister,the
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
Tenancy Legal Case Study The distinction between having a tenancy and a simple permission to
In this case the use of strict liability was so unjustified that the House of Lords had to step in a quashed the conviction at a later date as they themselves realized that it would have been unjust for the landlady to be convicted on those charges. This is an example of how the use of strict liability in criminal offences can be
The case concerned a number of claims presented by the families of the service men. One group, the ‘Challenger’ claimants, argued that under common law negligence, the MoD failed to provide equipment with the suitable technology to sufficiently protect the Servicemen. The MoD was alleged to have further failed by providing inadequate pre-deployment and in theatre t...
Implied terms – they are not expressed but they are adopted as “obvious” an individual must comply with (e.g) if buying a product and it is not in a good taste the consumer has the right to return it to the owner for exchange or refund.