This week's work does not really have a common theme. It deals mainly with negligence-style liability built-on and built-round by statutes. It also provides the background to some of the issues we will struggle with in Week 5. The best advice is to "know your statutes". (Please bring copies of the statutes to the tutorial - e.g. in a book of tort statutes)

Winfield & Jolowicz, (15th ed. 1998), Ch. 9; Markesinis & Deakin (4^th ed. 1999), pp. 309-335

*Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

*Defective Premises Act 1972; 1974 CLJ 307; 1975 CLJ 48

*Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, ss. 1,2, 11, 13 and Sch. 2

*Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984; 47 MLR 713; (Law Com 75)

*Access to the Countryside Act 2000 [not in force yet]

Latent Damage Act 1986

*Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552

AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1028

• Who counts as a lawful visitor?

*Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 3 All ER 777

Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431

• Notices, Warnings and Normal Risks

Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 117

Bunker v Charles Brand [1969] 2 All ER 59

*White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 (NB decided before UCTA 1977)

• Rights of Way

McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1994] 3 All ER 53, HL

Revill v Newbery [1996] 1 All ER 291

*Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 W.L.R. 670

Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645; Smith v Littlewoods [1987] AC 241

Billings v Riden [1958] AC 240

McAuley v Bristol CC [1992] 1 All ER 749

Rimmer v Liverpool CC [1984] 1 All ER 930; Targett v Torfaen BC [1992] 3 All ER 27

Andrews v Schooling [1991] 3 All ER 723; Thompson v Alexander (1992) 8 Const LJ 199

Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728; *Murphy v Brentwood [1991] 1 AC 398; Duncan-Wallace, 107 LQR 228

*Department of the Environment v Thomas Bates & Son [1991] 1 AC 499 (England)

Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd [2000] Building Law Reports 97, CA

Junior Books v Veitchi [1983] AC 520; Pirelli v Oscar Faber [1983] 2 AC 11; McKendrick, 11 Legal Studies 326

*Smith v Eric Bush [1990] 1 AC 831

Nitrigin Eireann v Inco [1992] 1 All ER 854

*Winnipeg Cond. Corp. # 36 v Bird Construction (1995) 121 DLR (4d) 193 (Canada), Noted Fleming, 111 LQR 362

Bryan v Maloney (1995) 128 Australian LR 163 (Australia)

*Invercargill CC v Hamlin [1996] AC 624 (New Zealand)

(NB - Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge - contract case)

1990 "By reducing too many issues effectively to questions of fact the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 have left important matters of principle unresolved." Discuss

1989 Write a memorandum for the Law Commission making proposals for the reform of the law on liability for defective premises.

1986 Has the enactment of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 improved the law?

Winfield & Jolowicz, Ch. 7; Markesinis & Deakin, pp. 336-353

*Buckley, 100 LQR 204

Groves v Wimborne [1898] 2 QB 402

Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium [1949] AC 398

*Lonrho v Shell [1982] AC 173

*Hague v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst [1992] 1 AC 58

*X v Bedfordshire [1995] 2 AC 633

Winfield & Jolowicz, Ch. 8 (esp.276-288); Markesinis & Deakin, pp. 519-532

*Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57

Law Reform (Personal Injury) Act 1948, s. 1

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643

*McDermid v Nash Dredging Co. [1987] 2 All ER 878

Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] 1 All ER 737

*Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, s.1

Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1987] 3 All ER 1068

*Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428

If you’re pushed for time - and you probably will be - leave out B and stick to the textbook on C - But do make sure that you eventually cover them.

Heading A deals with a topic which is popular with examiners. It is being lectured on by Mr Matthews. You should have read A(4) and some of A(9) already. The key task is to work out how the different causes of action in tort, under statute and in contract fit together. Who do the costs eventually rest with? Why? Issues in A(9) will come up again in wks 5 & 6.

Heading C deals with a topic which is examined less often, but is important in practice and interesting.

Written work. Please write an answer to the following problem:

Molly, a Girl Guide Leader, takes three 12-year old Girl Guides (Andrea, Bertha & Charlotte) on a free tour of the Plonka Chocolate Factory. The Plonka Chocolate Factory was recently built by Lone Star Builders Ltd. Plonka Chocolate Factory Ltd (PCF) allows the tours for good public relations, but insists that all visitors read the following notice at the factory gates. Molly and the three Girl Guides all read it.

Whilst on the tour Andrea slips in a puddle of spilt syrup and tumbles into an uncovered vat of hot liquorice. She suffers burns. Viv, an employee of PCF, reaches in to rescue Andrea instead of using the safety rope provided. Viv also suffers burns. Bertha is struck on the head when a shelf stacked with acid-drop jars falls off the wall. The shelf was incorrectly fitted by Ursula Shelving Ltd., an independent company that Lone Star Builders Ltd had contracted the shelving work to. Bertha suffers severe lacerations from the broken glass jars. The spurting blood ruins Molly’s uniform. PCF have to spend £3000 to replace all the shelves incorrectly fitted by Ursula Shelving Ltd. Lone Star Builders Ltd are insolvent.

Charlotte wanders off and gets her hair stuck in a humbug-machine whilst leaning into it to steal some sweets. She is partially scalped. Tariq, a PCF employee, whose job is to service the machine, sees Charlotte’s accident and is required to clean the machine after the accident. The gruesome task brings on a psychiatric illness. Advise the parties.