Legal Liabilities of the PartieS

Legal Liabilities of the Parties

Legal Liabilities of the Parties

Task One

Referring to the scenario Harry is liable for the injuries of Russel and Kylie. In both incedents we can see that the wanings were not adequate as people did get affected as instead of reading the caution on the boards were more easily attracted to the walls of the construction site both Russel and Kylie although a passive affectee got injured because there was not enough warning for the people living or passing from nearby. (Rogers et. al 2002 Pp. 13)

The common law of negligence imposed a duty of care on the occupier of any premises (including open land as well as buildings, ships and other kinds of premises) towards those coming onto those premises: this duty covered not only the occupier's negligent actions, but the state of the premises themselves. That law was complicated by the different levels of care required vis-à-vis contractors, invitees, licensees and trespassers - so far as the last were concerned, there was no duty of care at all - but it has been greatly simplified by codification in the Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 198

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 deals with an occupier's liability towards lawful visitors, while the 1984 Act deals with the much more limited duty owed to others on the premises (mainly trespassers). A business occupier may also have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Its impoprtant for Harry to know that the term "occupier" is not defined in either Act, but it seems to mean anyone with responsibility for the state of the premises and/or able to give consent for a person to enter. In practice there is rarely a problem - the owner or tenant is clearly the occupier - but there may be more than one occupier at a time. We can see in Wheat v Lacon [1966] 1 All ER 582, HL 

The owners of a pub put it in the hands of a manager, who was authorised to take lodgers. One such lodger was injured while using an unlit staircase. The House of Lords held that the owners could still be sued as occupiers because they retained some control over the state of he premises. (On the facts of the case they were found not liable, as it was up to the visitor, knowing it was dark, to proceed with care.)

The term "premises" is not defined either, but is clearly understood to include land, buildings, vehicles and other permanent or temporary structures. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 abolishes the common-law distinction between contractors, invitees and licensees and substitutes a single category of "lawful visitors". A lawful visitor is anyone who is present on the premises by the occupier's invitation, or with the occupier's express or implied permission, or in exercise of a legal right. However keeping the surrounding territory safe is again the occupier's liability. Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2(6) 

For the purposes of this section, persons who enter premises for any purpose in the exercise of a right conferred by law are to be treated as permitted by the ocupier to be there for that purpose, whether they in fact have his permission or not. 

A number of public officials have a right of access to land and/or buildings (including dwelling-houses) under certain circumstances even without the occupier's consent. The police have powers to enter and search premises under certain circumstances, and a search warrant can be issued by a magistrate to police officers searching for stolen goods, drugs or pornographic material, 

or to Customs officers, collectors of taxes, social workers or bailiffs. Officials of the electricity, gas and water companies, TV licensing officers, public health officers, VAT inspectors and firemen on duty also have a right to enter premises without a warrant to perform certain duties.  Thomas v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249, DC  A man P hired a hall for a public meeting to protest 

against certain government policies. 

D and other police officers demanded admission, and refused to leave when the chairman of the meeting asked them to do so. On the chairman's instructions, P and other stewards then used minimal force to eject the police officers, but P suffered a technical assault by D and brought a private prosecution. The High Court upheld the justices' decision to dismiss the charge, saying the police were entitled to attend the meeting. 

Task Two

With regard to Frank's situation hewill have to be considered a full time employee of Mark as he availed sick pay and holiday pay. Whereas George is working independently. Understanding the lawful matters engaged is not assisted by the ambiguities in the present law. (Stephenson ET. AL G2000) Cavendish Publishing. Pp. 24)

Originally the world was split up into persons who were servants = workers and persons who were self engaged = provide a service. Servants might and often were chartered for the day. However in a twosome of cases in the 1980s the developed tribunal said that where there was no 'mutuality of obligation' i.e. an obligation of the employer to supply paid work and the worker to take paid work there could be no agreement of paid work (Nethermere St Neots Ltd v Gardner 1984). So if there was no paid work, was the individual who did the work self employed? probably not. Did this signify we created a new type of person, the "Casual", who is neither an worker nor self employed? (Kelly et. al 1997 Pp. 70)

Many tribunals now appear to operate as if this was the case. It is likely although more useful in perform to think of a casual easily as an employee for a short time span who has no continuity of paid work and to focus attention on matters of continuity of employment.Note the recent case of a self employed dental surgeon giving hospital crisis cover who, because of the regularity and length of time in addition to the continuity of providing the service was ruled by enclosures to have been an worker, and thus able to claim unfair dismissal. The reality is that, in situations of negligence, the distinction between a agreement of service and a agreement for services only becomes of significance when it is searched to make the employer liable, not for a breach of his own obligation of care, but for some collateral proceed of negligence of those who he employs.

Task Three

The first issue in this scenario is proving that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care in respect of the damage or loss that he had suffered. Secondly, the claimant must display that the defendant broken the benchmark of this ...