Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Tort: Occupiers' Liability
Independent contractors and the occupier's position
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
The section 2(4)(b) escape and its three conditions, Haseldine on technical work an occupier cannot check and Woodward on work an occupier can, and what Bottomley added about competence.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
State the three conditions in section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
What did Haseldine v CA Daw and Son Ltd [1941] decide?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What does section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 provide?
Model answer
Section 2(4)(b) allows an occupier to escape liability for the faulty work of an independent contractor. The occupier must have behaved reasonably in three respects for the defence to succeed.
- 2
State the three conditions in section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
Model answer
It must have been reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor at all. The occupier must have taken reasonable steps to check that the contractor was competent. The occupier must also have taken reasonable steps, where possible, to check the work was properly done.
- 3
What did Haseldine v CA Daw and Son Ltd [1941] decide?
Model answer
A visitor was injured when a lift fell after negligent servicing by a specialist firm. The court held the occupier not liable, because lift maintenance is technical work properly left to specialists.
- 4
What did Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] decide?
Model answer
A pupil slipped on an icy step that a cleaner had left in a dangerous state. The court held the occupier liable, because clearing a step needs no technical knowledge and should have been checked.
- 5
What distinguishes Haseldine from Woodward?
Model answer
Technical work that an occupier cannot judge may reasonably be left entirely to the contractor. Simple work is different, because the occupier is able to inspect it and must do so.
- 6
How can an occupier show that a contractor was competent?
Model answer
An occupier can check trade qualifications, membership of a professional body and references. Checking that the contractor carries public liability insurance is also good evidence of care.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
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.