OLA 57 +84

The OLA 1957 imposes a duty on the occupier of premises to...

• Keep lawful visitors reasonably safe

• Keep all visitors reasonably safe

• Keep trespassers reasonably safe

• Keep all visitors completely safe

Wheat v Lacon tells us that an occupier...

• Must have exclusive control of the premises

• Must have a substantial degree of control over the premises

• Must have a sufficient degree of control of the premises

• Does not need any control of the premises

Which of these cases shows that an implied permission to enter can come from a thing both dangerous and attractive to children?

• Jolley v Sutton BC

• Lowery v Walker

• Robson v Hallett

• Harvey v Plymouth CC

Under s2(3)(a), an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.

• True

• False

Which case tells us that, despite s2(3)(a), an occupier is entitled to expect parents to take appropriate care of young children?

• Moloney v Lambeth LBC

• Phipps v Rochester Corporation

Which case exemplifies that specialist visitors should be aware of and protect against risks within their specialism?

• Phipps v Rocherster Corporation

• Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc

• Harvey v Plymouth CC

• Roles v Nathan

In which case was D liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check the competence of the outside contractor?

• Haseldine v Daw

• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

• Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

In which case was D not liable as it was reasonable to bring in an outside contractor to fix a lift?

• Haseldine v Daw

• Lowery v Walker

• Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

• Roles v Nathan

For D to owe a duty to trespassers...

• The claim must arise from D's dangerous behaviour

• The claim must arise from the dangerous state of the premises

• The test in Caparo must be satisfied

For the OLA 1984, "occupier" and "premises" are defined in the same way as for the OLA 1957.

• True

• False