marigoldafonso's version from 2016-04-21 21:02

Section 1

Question Answer
Wheat v Laconsufficient degree of control
Wheeler v Copasladder = premises
Lowery v Walkertolerance of repeated entry constituted permission
Addiemere sign insufficient, knowledge of entry is not consent
Tomlinson/Calgarthcan become trespasser
FLMCForeseeability of risk, liklihood, magnitude of loss is risk materialises, cost and practicability of precautions
Simkiss v RhondaOccupiers not held to higher standard
Moloney v Lambethduty to not lead children into temptation
Phipps v RochesterParents may be liable
Glasgow v Taylorallurement
Jolley v Suttonrisk of some injury enough
Roles v Nathanreasonable to expect them to know about things related to their skill

Section 2

Question Answer
Haseldine v DawNot liable if reasonable to entrust the work to an independent contractor
Bottomley v Todmorden took reasonable steps to ensure contractor was competent
Woodward v Mayor of HastingsOccupier took reasonable steps to satisfy the work was properly done
Darby v National Trustno obligation to warn of obvious danger

Section 3

Question Answer
BRB v Herrington- common humanityduty owed when reasonable man, knowing the facts would be inhumane not to give warning
84 no duty to see that non visitor will be safe