LAW

Law

Law

The renovation work: A Case Study

Case 1: Peter

Peter and Owen entered into whereby Peter agreed to build an extension to Owens's house. Advice Peter and Owen in the following separate situations: A) Peter scheduled the commencement of the works for 1st March 2000, but during February he realized that, in the light of labor shortages and increases in the prices of raw materials, he had grossly underestimated the cost of the building work. He has now been approached by Jack who would be willing to enter a much more valuable contract with Peter, but performance would be required immediately.

B) Unknown to Peter and Owen, her house has been subject to an order for compulsory acquisition by the local highways authority. The site of the property was apparently required for Road widening purposes. C) Peter informs Owen that he cannot perform the contract because he only has two earth moving machines and one of those machines has been destroyed by fire at his yard. The cause of the fire has not yet been established. The other machine will not be available because it has been allocated to performance of other contracts.

Peter, Owen and Steven could either be liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 57), or the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (OLA 84) depending upon whether the injured child is classified as a visitor or a non-visitor. On the facts, "the boys broke away from the party and climbed over a chain link security fence… (that) had a large red sign stating 'Danger Construction Site - Keep Out". It is therefore highly likely that the injured boy would be classified as a trespasser, thus OLA 84 will apply.

"Premises" for the purposes of OLA 84 are defined as set out under S.1(3)(a) of OLA 57, namely "any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft". On the facts, "a barn" would clearly fall within the definition as it is a fixed structure. "Occupiers" for the purposes of OLA 84 are defined as set out under S.1 (2) of OLA 57, namely persons having "occupation or control of premises". On the facts, Peter, Owen and Steven would clearly fall within the definition as they have control of the barn. "Visitor" for the purposes of OLA 84 are defined as set out under S.1(2) of OLA 57, namely persons having "invitation or permission… to enter or use the premises". On the facts, the injured boy would clearly fall without the definition as the sign on the fence makes it clear that no invitation or permission to enter or use the construction site is given. He is therefore a non-visitor.

Case Two: Owen

If the injured boy wishes to take action against Peter, Owen and Steven he will most likely do it via an adult protecting his interests, namely a "litigation friend". The appropriate head of loss under which a claim will be made will be personal injury for the broken leg. In order to make a successful claim, the Claimant must prove that ...