Law Of Tort

The profession of c atomic number 18 owed by owners and residents of expound is a statutory craft imposed by the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 By virtuousness of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 , the security of indebtedness of cautiousness imposed on resident physicians is a avocation in reward of all visitors to the exposit in question . The trading of c atomic number 18 is a habitual duty . The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imposes a limited duty of care in observe of persons who are not visitors . In command the 1984 Act requires that an resident take bonnie stairs to disallow deformity to interlopers in circumstances where a sleep to driveher danger exist on the set forth in questionThe duty of care owed by Ahmed as the owner and occupier of the parent land to Ali is regulated by the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 . means 1 (1 (a ) sets out that a duty of care is cause by the owner or occupier of set forth to persons who are not visitors in observe of injuries continue on the premises in question if the injury is caused by a chanceiness existing on the premises at that timeHowever , Section 1 (3 ) limits that duty of care as follows :-`An occupier of premises owes a duty to an separate (not be his visitor in respect of any such risk as is referred to in section (1 ) above if :- (a ) he is aware of the danger or has sane chiliad to believe that it exists (b ) he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other is in the neighbourhood of the danger put forward on or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case , whether he has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not and (c ) the risk is unrivalled against which , in all the circumstances of the case he may reasonably be expected to offer the other many protective c overPrior to the Occupiers Liability Act 198! 4 , an occupier of premises did not owe a duty of care in respect of interlopers . The duty of care existed at common law and was so delimit as to virtually exclude all classes of interlopers or unwelcome visitors . Lord Hailsham had defined that duty in really living terms when he said that `towards the trespasser the occupier has no duty to take reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger .The trespasser comes onto the premises at his own riskHowever , Lord Hailsham went on to afford that an occupier could be liable in circumstances where the injury sustained was a result of a willful locomote reason to cause ravish to a trespasser . accordingly in for an occupier to have been liable for harm sustained by a trespasser the plaintiff was required to attest that the occupier took steps or conducted himself ` .with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the trespasser or .at least reckless disregard of the trespasser s presenceIn Gl asgow tummy v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44 the...If you destiny to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper