levo

Tort: Occupiers' Liability

Child visitors and the principle of allurement

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

Section 2(3)(a) and the higher standard owed to the young, the allurement cases from Glasgow Corporation v Taylor to Jolley v Sutton, and how far Phipps v Rochester lets an occupier rely on a parent.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Key term

What does section 2(3)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 say about children?

Key term

What is an allurement?

Key term

What did Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] decide?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    What does section 2(3)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 say about children?

    Model answer

    Section 2(3)(a) requires an occupier to be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Premises safe for an adult may not be safe for a child.

  2. 2

    What is an allurement?

    Model answer

    An allurement is something on the premises that tempts a child into danger. An occupier who leaves an allurement must take extra care to guard it.

  3. 3

    What did Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] decide?

    Model answer

    A seven-year-old boy died after eating attractive poisonous berries growing in a public park. The House of Lords held the corporation liable, because the berries were an allurement to a child.

  4. 4

    Why was the boat in Jolley v Sutton treated as an allurement?

    Model answer

    The abandoned boat invited children to play on it and to try to repair it. The council should have anticipated that children would meddle with the boat and be hurt.

  5. 5

    What did Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] decide?

    Model answer

    A five-year-old fell into a trench on a building site while out with his seven-year-old sister. The court held the occupier not liable, because an occupier may expect a very young child to be supervised.

  6. 6

    How far can an occupier rely on parental supervision?

    Model answer

    An occupier may assume that a prudent parent will not let a very young child roam alone in a dangerous place. The assumption is much weaker on premises designed for children.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Tort: Occupiers' Liability, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.