LLB Help

Facts: C was injured by a horse when using a shortcut across D’s field. The land had been habitually used as a shortcut by members of the public for many years and D had taken no steps to prevent people coming on to the land. D was aware that the horse was dangerous. Ratio: D was liable. A claimant who regularly used a short-cut across D’s land had an implied permission to be there.

Facts: C dived into the sea at Folkestone Harbour. He hit his head on a submerged object, causing him serious injuries. His original claim was under the 1957 Act, but after conceding that he was a trespasser he was under the 1984 Act. Ratio: At the time C sustained his injury, D had no reason to believe that he or anyone else would be swimming from the slipway and the criteria set out in s.1(3)(b) was not satisfied and no duty of care arose.

Facts: C was seriously injured when he ignored warning signs and dived into the shallow end of a lake on D’s property. C’s status as a lawful visitor to the park was limited to the time before he entered the lake. Ratio: C’s claim rejected. There was no risk to the claimant due to ‘the state of the premises or anything done or omitted upon the premises’, and so no risk of a kind which gave risk to a duty under either of the OLAs.

Facts: C fell through a skylight whilst on the roof of a school building which was accessed by pipework on the exterior of the building. C argued that the council was liable under the 1984 Act. Ratio: Council was liable to 50%. School was negligent in not carrying out a risk assessment on the area and not fencing the area off.

Facts: C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed. C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act. Ratio: CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality. C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.

Facts: C was injured while using a ‘splat wall’ run by an independent contractor at a charity fun day by D. C’s injuries were caused by the independent contractor’s negligence whose insurance policy had lapsed and was unable to meet her claim in full. C sued D for failing to ensure that the contractor was adequately insured. Ratio: CoA denied C’s claim for the outstanding amount of damages. On the facts, D had done enough to discharge their duty and so there was no breach.

Facts: A two-year-old drowned in a pond at a holiday park. There was a fence but it was not high enough to prevent the child climbing in. Ratio: There had been no breach of duty by the occupiers of the park. It was reasonable to expect a child to have been under adult supervision.

Facts: A man drowned while swimming in a deep and murky pond on D’s property. Ratio: The occupier had not been required to put up a sign warning of the obvious dangers.

Facts: C was injured when helping to set up a firework display. Ratio: As C’s injuries arose from activities conducted on D’s land rather than due to the state of the land itself, C’s claim under the 1957 Act failed.