An express visitor will have permission by the owner or occupier e. g. School children are express visitors as they have permission to stay In the school as a visitor. | Implied: An implied visitor is visitor who do not have permission but is still aloud to enter the premises, e. g. a postman, a postman does not need to ask for permission before they can enter the premises. | OLA 1957 – ‘An occupier of premises owes a common law of duty of care to all his visitors’. The Law
If a visitor goes into a ‘private’ area they may become a trespasser even if they have permission to be on the premises for a different reason. | The 3 Exceptions Children: When it comes to occupier’s liability there are some exceptions. The law on children says ‘ an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’. For instance in the Pearson V Coleman Bros (1948) a 7 year old girl went to the circus with her family. She wandered of to go to the toilets instead she ended up in the animal enclosure and was attacked by a lion.
We could argue the law of occupiers liability doesn’t cover the the child as went into a private area, but the law says that children are naturally inquisitive and can easily be ‘allured’ (animals, water, broken glass etc).
Warnings: If the occupier gives someone a fair warning then the occupier cannot be sued if his warning is ignored. Look at this case for instance, Roles V Nathan (1963), a chimney sweeper turnt up at a mans house and was told not to sweep his chimney as there was a leakage, but he ignored the warnings and the sweeper was poisoned and died.
The Essay on Teen Curfew Parents Children Law
ESSAY 1 The Opposition of Teen Curfew A teen curfew law was recently passed in the District of Columbia. This was a needed law to alleviate crime teenagers fall victim of. Minors under the age of 17 should be in their home at a very reasonable hour so they will be energetic, fresh and alert when attending school. I am convinced that the more freedom teenagers have the more opportunity they have to ...
Independent Contractors: The law says that where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty executions of any work of constructions, maintance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not liable. In the case Haseldine v Daw (1941) there was a lift company who fitted a lift in a building but the lift broke and injured people. The people sued the lift company and not the occupiers in the building. What is an Occupier? An occupier is anyone with control over premises / land, e. g. companies, councils, parks, schools etc. An occupier of premises owes the same duty, to all his visitors.
