Miss M’s OLA 1957 Suggested Answer
Ravi may have a claim under OLA 1957. S.2(1) states an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors.
It must be established whether there is a duty. There are 4 initial requirements. First it must be
proven there was an occupier. Here Paul has sufficient control of his house as he owns the old
house therefore, he is an occupier (Wheat v Lacon). Next it must be proven there was a lawful
visitor. Paul asked Ravi to fix the faulty light in his house, therefore Ravi has express permission
making him a lawful visitor (Lowery). Thirdly, it must be proved the damage occurred on Paul’s
premises. Premises are defined under s.1(3)(a) as any land or building fixed or movable
structure. Paul’s house constitutes a fixed building therefore can be defined as premises. Lastly
Ravi’s injury must be due to the state of the premises. Ravi was injured due to the damaged and
rotten wooden ledge in Paul’s house. As all 4 requirements have been met, a duty has arisen.
Next, under s.2(2) Paul must take reasonable care to see that Ravi will be reasonably safe using
the premises for the purpose of his visit. Ravi is an electrician therefore an expert as Paul asked
him to fix his faulty light. Paul warned Ravi that the house was not in good repair and that he
should take care, however this was not specific to the damaged, rotten ledge. There is a lower
duty of care towards experts who are injured during the exercise of their calling under s.2(3)(b).
However it can be argued, Ravi was acting in the exercise of his calling, but a rotten window
ledge may be outside of his work as an electrician if he is not used to outside work. Paul has
failed to keep Ravi reasonably safe on his premises.
Paul is expected to meet the reasonable standard of the reasonable occupier (Blyth). The
reasonable occupier would provide sufficient warnings to warn their visitor of any damaged
rotten parts of the premises. Paul did not provide sufficient warnings to Ravi in relation to the
rotten window ledge where Ravi got injured and therefore has not met the standard of the
reasonable occupier. There is a likelihood of harm if an occupier does not warn an electrician of
a rotten window ledge which he uses to access a broken light (Hayley). There is seriousness of
harm as there is no specific warning and falling from a collapsed rotten window ledge would
cause serious injuries (Paris). It would not have cost Paul to provide specific warnings in relation
to the rotten window ledge which would have prevented Ravi falling and breaking his ankle
(Bolton). Balancing the risk factors, Paul has breached his duty.
Paul must be the factual and legal cause of Ravi’s injuries. But for Paul not providing specific
warnings for the rotten, damaged window ledge, Ravi would not have fallen to the ground and
broken his ankle (Barnett). Ravi’s injuries are reasonably foreseeable and are not too remote
(Wagon Mound). Ravi’s injury may have worsened due a pre-existing injury from playing
football. However, under the thin skull rule, Paul must take Ravi as he finds him (Smith v Leech
Brain). Therefore, Paul is the factual and legal cause of Ravi’s injuries.
Ravi may have a claim under OLA 1957. S.2(1) states an occupier owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors.
It must be established whether there is a duty. There are 4 initial requirements. First it must be
proven there was an occupier. Here Paul has sufficient control of his house as he owns the old
house therefore, he is an occupier (Wheat v Lacon). Next it must be proven there was a lawful
visitor. Paul asked Ravi to fix the faulty light in his house, therefore Ravi has express permission
making him a lawful visitor (Lowery). Thirdly, it must be proved the damage occurred on Paul’s
premises. Premises are defined under s.1(3)(a) as any land or building fixed or movable
structure. Paul’s house constitutes a fixed building therefore can be defined as premises. Lastly
Ravi’s injury must be due to the state of the premises. Ravi was injured due to the damaged and
rotten wooden ledge in Paul’s house. As all 4 requirements have been met, a duty has arisen.
Next, under s.2(2) Paul must take reasonable care to see that Ravi will be reasonably safe using
the premises for the purpose of his visit. Ravi is an electrician therefore an expert as Paul asked
him to fix his faulty light. Paul warned Ravi that the house was not in good repair and that he
should take care, however this was not specific to the damaged, rotten ledge. There is a lower
duty of care towards experts who are injured during the exercise of their calling under s.2(3)(b).
However it can be argued, Ravi was acting in the exercise of his calling, but a rotten window
ledge may be outside of his work as an electrician if he is not used to outside work. Paul has
failed to keep Ravi reasonably safe on his premises.
Paul is expected to meet the reasonable standard of the reasonable occupier (Blyth). The
reasonable occupier would provide sufficient warnings to warn their visitor of any damaged
rotten parts of the premises. Paul did not provide sufficient warnings to Ravi in relation to the
rotten window ledge where Ravi got injured and therefore has not met the standard of the
reasonable occupier. There is a likelihood of harm if an occupier does not warn an electrician of
a rotten window ledge which he uses to access a broken light (Hayley). There is seriousness of
harm as there is no specific warning and falling from a collapsed rotten window ledge would
cause serious injuries (Paris). It would not have cost Paul to provide specific warnings in relation
to the rotten window ledge which would have prevented Ravi falling and breaking his ankle
(Bolton). Balancing the risk factors, Paul has breached his duty.
Paul must be the factual and legal cause of Ravi’s injuries. But for Paul not providing specific
warnings for the rotten, damaged window ledge, Ravi would not have fallen to the ground and
broken his ankle (Barnett). Ravi’s injuries are reasonably foreseeable and are not too remote
(Wagon Mound). Ravi’s injury may have worsened due a pre-existing injury from playing
football. However, under the thin skull rule, Paul must take Ravi as he finds him (Smith v Leech
Brain). Therefore, Paul is the factual and legal cause of Ravi’s injuries.
