Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - Case Study Example

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Introduction Henry went to The Learned Wig, a book store, to purchase a book. On the entrance of the shop was a notice, stating that the shop has got no liability in case the visitors were injured due to negligence by the management. And on entering the shop Henry got injured when a carelessly placed pile of books fell on him. It was evident that the injury was caused due to the negligence of the shop owner, and that Henry could sue the management of The Learned Wig for damages under the existing English Law. The warning put by the management would in no way was sufficient to safeguard the management from discharging any liability. The customer or other persons should be protected from harm not only while he is performing a business transaction but also while entering and leaving the premises. This case comes under the purview of Occupier’s Liability Act 1957. Occupiers Liability Act 1957 The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 regulates occupiers liability to visitors or customers who pay visit to their premises. S 1(2) of the Act defines ‘visitors’ as persons who enter the premises with the permission by the occupier. The Learned Wig is a shop where visitors are invited to do a business transaction. As per the law, visitors are those persons who have the express or implied permission of the occupier to be on the premises to carry out a transaction. Therefore, Henry was a visitor to the occupier’s premises and hence comes under the provisions of this Act. If Henry was a trespasser the case would have come under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Section 2(4)(a) of Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 declares that a warning will only discharge the occupiers’ duty regarding danger, but the warning should be reasonable and must possess necessary guidelines to avoid such dangers. In Henry’s case there was no warning implying Henry to keep away from the pile of books, which was going to fall on him. A simple warning like ‘do not touch’ or ‘enter at your own risk’ could not be treated as warning because it is totally insufficient to invite the attention of the visitors against the danger waiting for them. The warning provided by The Learned Wig is not specific and is a willful desistance from taking liability of injuries caused by their negligence. The warning, which the management has put, was nothing but a sign cautioning the customers, and the same had hidden motives and was not expressive to the visitor or to the customer, and hence it cannot be treated as a sufficient warning under the proviso. The legal approach is based on the fact that divisions of negligence are broad and elaborate. It is never closed. In tort, which is a criminal wrong, remedies are allowed as compensation or damages against the injury caused irrespective, whether it is done intentionally or not. The feasibility and applicability of premises liability go in support to this. Premises liability refers to accidents, which happen because of the negligent maintenance, or hazardous conditions happen to see on the premises owned by a person other than the victim of the accident. Landowners are supposed to maintain their property in such a manner that the act should not bring any injuries who visit those premises. This is applicable to shop keepers as well as house owners. They have a moral responsibility to provide safety to visitors from anticipated and unforeseen harm on their premises. If a visitor is injured due to the failure of the owner of the shop or establishment in giving proper safe environment at the premises, the injured has got the legal right to move for a claim for damages incurred in lieu of the injury caused upon the person. Premises liability cases shall stand for injuries caused on the property or premises owned by a negligent third party. Slip and fall accidents, defetive conditions etc., come under its purview. An act of negligence is said to be performed when the accused has not actually foreseen the consequences of exposing the victim to the risk of suffering and injury or other damages, thereby bringing hazards to the safety of others in situations where a reasonable person would have foreseen the danger of injury. If it were known, the victim would have taken preventive measures. Negligence, therefore, calls for a personal injury lawsuit.  It is performed by a conduct that is below any kind of standard concept established by law to protect people from unreasonable risks or harm, due to the negligence of others. (http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/Personal-Injury/Federal/what-is-negligence-.html, viewed 28th April, 2009) Relevant Case Law: The present case ‘Learned Wing v. Henry’ should be seen in relevance to the above. The decisions on a similar case, viz., Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810, will establish the applicability of the above law in Henry’s case. Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd., is an English tort law case setting a precedent of ‘trip and slip’ cases and comes under the doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’, which meant ‘the thing speaks for itself’. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 demands that the owners of shops or other premises have an undeniable duty to ensure that the premises of the occupier shall remain safe for the visitors. If an accident occurs at the premises due to the negligence of the occupier of the premises in non-keeping of the premises reasonably safe, the occupier is liable to pay compensation to the damages. For initiating a decision on this case, the court ordered that the burden of proof that he was not negligent should be fixed on the occupier. The facts of the case go like this: The plaintiff slipped on some pink yoghurt in a Tesco store in Liverpool. On seeing her falling, an employee of Tesco immediately lifted her up. She was then attended by the manager of the store and offered to clean her soiled dress. And this smoothened the situation. But after three weeks she was again there at the store for shopping. On that occasion she saw a spillage of orange squash on the floor. She waited for sometime hoping someone would come and clean it up. But nobody turned up. This was more than enough for her to take a decision, and she moved the court against the negligence on the part of Tesco superstore. When the case came before the court, the jury held that the spillage of pink yoghurt spoke for itself and the person responsible for the act of negligence. Tesco was asked to compensate the damages even though the plaintiff was not asked to establish the duration of the spillage on the floor. The burden of proof was on Tesco superstore.( http://www.statemaster.com /encyclopedia/Breach-of-duty-in-English-law , viewed on 29th April, 2009) Reference: http://www.statemaster.com /encyclopedia/Breach-of-duty-in-English-law , viewed on 29th April, 2009. http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/Personal-Injury/Federal/what-is-negligence-.html, viewed 28th April, 2009 Read More