Law of Tort CASE ANALYSIS by Christopher https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu OCCUPIERS LIABILITY en-us 2016-11-21 14:56:37 UTC 2025-11-10 04:18:47 UTC hello@padlet.com stpatricks_stpatricks https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139110954 Wheat v Lacon[1966] AC 552     House of Lords 

]]> 2016-11-21 14:58:39 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139110954 stpatricks_stpatricks https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111110 Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of Lords]]> 2016-11-21 14:59:00 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111110 stpatricks_stpatricks https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111249 Titchener v British Railways Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 House of Lords


]]> 2016-11-21 14:59:20 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111249 stpatricks_stpatricks https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111367 Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB ]]> 2016-11-21 14:59:37 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111367 stpatricks_stpatricks https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111465 Ogwo v Taylor [1987] 3 WLR 1145 House of Lords


]]> 2016-11-21 14:59:53 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139111465 If Richardson had been pary to the appeal, the climant' s (Wheat) wouid have succeeded. This case is about occupiers liability. Submitted by Olufemi Adeeko. https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139129781 2016-11-21 15:46:21 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139129781 GRACE A MAGEE https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139130464 The claimant husband was killed when he fell down the stairs, there was no light illuminating the stairs, the ground floor of the building by the defendant company, who operated a restaurant. The third floor was licenced to the third party, who accommodated the claimant and her family. It was held that the defendant was not liable for the accident because the third party was responsible for the management. Both the defendant and the third party were held to be occupier in the building. It was also held that there is no requirement for physical occupation for one to be construed as an occupier.]]> 2016-11-21 15:48:13 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139130464 In the case law of Ogwo v Taylor [1987] 3 WLR 1145 House of Lords, this is about occupiers liability. Even though the fireman (Ogwo) was carrying out his professional harzadous duty. he is still owed a duty of care by Taylor (the defendant). Therefore, the defence of volenti fit injuria is inadmissable. Thus, Ogwo might be entitled to compesation. Submitted by Olufemi Adeeko https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139135063 2016-11-21 16:01:35 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139135063 In the decided case of Phipps v Rochester Corporation, [1955] under occupiers liability, the defendant was not liable, because, a reasonable, and, prudent parents should have safeguarded the safety of their children. Unfortunately, on this occasion, they did not hence, the corporation was not liable. Submitted by Olufemi Adeeko. https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139140592 2016-11-21 16:17:41 UTC https://padlet.com/stpatricks_stpatricks/j94l58kayhdu/wish/139140592