Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Occupiers liability act common law
Occupiers liability act common law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Occupiers liability act common law
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. As
Occupier, the RSPB owes a duty of care to any persons who use RSPB
land, irrespective of authorisation.
Legal Analysis
RSPB is the Occupier for the purposes of both the "Occupier's
Liability Act 1957" and "Occupier's Liability Act 1984." This is
because the RSPB as an organisation has immediate supervision and
control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of
persons onto its land. Thus, the Law imposes equitable liability upon
the RSPB for its defective premises and death or personal injury (and
loss to property) that incurred by persons upon its land
This responsibility upon the RSPB to secure the welfare of persons
upon its land, is affected by the status of such persons. Indeed, the
duty owed to lawful visitors is of a higher standard than the duty
owed to unlawful trespassers. However, in accordance with the law,
'reasonable measures' need to be taken to secure the welfare of both
groups.
The Duty of Care owed to Lawful Visitors
Section 2 (2) of the Occupier's Lia...
... middle of paper ...
...tandard of care owed differentiates. The
standard for an invited person is higher as the RSPB undertakes to
secure his welfare, the standard for a trespasser is objective and
thus lower, as the trespasser is deemed to be an average person, and
no regard is given to the idiosyncrasies of the trespasser: age,
mental health.
Evaluation
The RSPB must take all reasonable measures to ensure its grounds are
reasonably safe and that any disclaimers of safety offer greater
protection to the visitor rather than just highlighting the risk.
However, for trespassers, there must still be no overtly dangerous
objects/circumstances upon RSPB property, though regard need not be
given to particular characteristics of trespassers. Moreover,
disclaimers ought to warn of the dangers but not necessarily offer any
alternatives.
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
ii) If one is the owner or operator, liability may attach even if some other
The Squatter and the Don was written by María Ruiz de Burton, with the pen name of C.Loyal. Ruiz de Burton was an Mexican-American writer born in 1832, in Baja California. As a writer, María Ruiz de Burton was the first author who write in English. During her writing career, there are few works, of which, The Squatter and the Don is the most famous and the most influential literary piece. As what has been mentioned at the beginning, The Squatter and the Don was published under the pen name of C.Loyal, which was an abbreviation of “Citizen who is Loyal”, and which stands for the political appeal that María Ruiz de Burton advocated toward local government in the nineteenth century. By using this name,
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
22 November 2004. Clear and Present Danger? Test. The. 2004.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231 Section 85Q says that a landowner may be liable for physical harm suffered by child trespassers on their land, only if all five criteria are met. Condition ‘A’ states, “The place where the condition exists is one upon which the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 85Q. Condition ‘B’ discusses whether or not the landowner knows or has reason to know that an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm will result. Id. Condition ‘C’ focuses on whether or not the child due to their age is not aware of the risk that is present. Id. Condition ‘D’ says compares the burden of eliminating the condition to the level of risk posed to the children. Id. Finally, Condition ‘E’ states that the landowner fails to use reasonable care to eliminate or protect the children. Id. Richard’s case fails on condition ‘A’ as C.D. Management had no reason to foresee that children would trespass in their basement laundry room, as there were only laundry machines in the basement and C.D. Management had no reason to believe that a child would trespass there. C.D. Management could reasonably foresee that someone wanting to do their laundry would trespass in their basement, but Richard Melville was not in their basement to do his laundry. The Soule case created common law about this issue, “There is a
Health and social care professionals encounter a diverse amount of individuals who have different needs and preferences regarding their health. As professionals they must ensure that all services users, whether it is older people with dementia, an infant with physical disabilities or an adult with an eating disorder (National Minimum Data Set for Social Care, [no date]), are treated in a way that will successfully meet such needs. In fact, health and social care professionals have a ‘duty of care’ towards services users, as well as other workers, in which they must legally promote the wellbeing of individuals and protect them against harm, abuse and injury. (The Care Certificate Workbook Standard 3, [no date]) Duty of care is a legal requirement
Most of the time, young minds are not always capable of making good decisions. Romeo and Juliet refused to see this, which ultimately led them to their demise. Their course of action had disrupted the great chain of being, which started and concluded the chaos in the play. Furthermore, Shakespeare had written out alternate option for both the lovers and yet, they both refused to see them, and continued to disrupt the system. Finally, Romeo and Juliet had acted with haste, sealing their tragic fate.The choices the that the two “star-crossed lovers” made, led them to their death.
Barney, a recently retired Deputy Sheriff in North Carolina, is plagued by a week of disastrous discoveries, in some ways likened to the tribulations of Job as recorded in the Biblical account. Not only is Barney’s ‘prime real estate in the North Carolina mountains’ being claimed by a former co-worker citing adverse possession rights, but he discovers that his beach-front home is being claimed by the city under eminent domain to make room for a Nickelodeon Family Resort. Furthermore, Barney’s truck is stolen by a former employee of a fine dining restaurant posing as a valet, only to be discovered at a classic car show a few weeks later. The current owner of the vehicle refuses to return it to Barney until he is reimbursed $5,600, the value of a car he traded to obtain the truck. As Barney’s attorney, and longtime friend, I have the responsibility of advising Barney of his legal position and subsequent rights, while also offering personal support as a Christian friend.
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
In law there are two types of land, registered and unregistered. It is necessary to register land so the register precisely reflects the state of the registered property, so it is clear to see who the current owner is and whether there are any third party proprietary interests affecting it; this is important as it would make many lal enquiries easier and will show the property’s reality to any future purchasers. The purpose of land registration according to Gray and Gray (2008) is that “any prospective purchaser of registered land should always be able to verify, by simple examination of the register, the exact nature of all the interests existing in or over the land which he proposes to buy”. There are three main principles of land registration: the insurance principle, curtain principle and the mirror principle. The mirror principle which essentially means that the register reflects reality hence all facts significant to the land title are to be found on the register. The significant facts that should be included in the register are “the owner, the nature of his ownership, and any limitations on his ownership and any rights enjoyed by other persons over the land that are adverse to the owner”. However this is not always the case as some third party proprietary interests override registered dispositions, these are called overriding interests. Overriding interests are binding on a purchaser of any registered land even though they are not on the register.
Of the many controversial topics that have occurred at Clarendon College one that seems of the upmost importance is dorm safety. While I do not personally stay in the dorms, friends of mine that do live in the dorms feel like the rooms are not properly secured. At the college there has been several people who have said that their doors to their rooms can just be kicked open whether they it is locked or not. This is not safe. When allowing their children to go to college many parents make the assumption that they will be in a safe environment and that they will be secured; however, this assumption is not always true. If many parents knew that their children were not in a safe and secure environment, more than likely they would not allow them to attend that college.
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.
A hazard is defined as an activity or object that has the potential to cause harm if contact is made with the person, object or activity (MHS, 1996; Harmse, 2007; HSE, 2006). These hazards in a work place need to be identified and dealt with accordingly to prevent any harm to employees or any individual acquainted to a certain activity or establishment. The key roles and principles of occupational hygiene are Anticipation, Identification, Evaluation and Control (Schoeman and van den Heever, 2014; Harmse, 2008; SAMTRAC, 2012). To practise in accordance to the above principle; a hazard identification and risk assessment needs to be conducted. Anticipation is the foreseeing of the activity