Occupiers' liability to skilled visitors and risks incident to their calling
Dana owns and runs a café. A wall socket behind the counter has started sparking, so she calls out Kofi, a qualified electrician, and tells him exactly what the fault is. Kofi decides to work on the socket without isolating the electricity supply, to save time. He receives an electric shock and is injured. There is nothing else wrong with the premises.
Which of the following best describes Dana's likely liability to Kofi under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: Dana is unlikely to be liable, because an occupier may expect a person exercising his calling to guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
An occupier may expect a skilled visitor to guard against the special risks ordinarily incident to their calling (OLA 1957 s.2(3)(b)).
Occupiers' liability to skilled visitors and risks incident to their calling
The common duty of care takes account of the care to be expected of the visitor. Under s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957 an occupier may expect a person, in the exercise of his calling, to appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so. The risk of a shock from a live socket is exactly the kind of risk an electrician is expected to guard against.
Why B is wrong: S.2(3) expressly makes the visitor's expected degree of care relevant, so the duty does vary with the visitor.
Why C is wrong: Kofi was on the premises to do the very job he was invited to do; he was a visitor, so the 1957 Act applies.
Why D is wrong: Under s.2(4)(a) a warning does not by itself absolve the occupier unless it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; Dana escapes liability because of s.2(3)(b), not because a warning is automatically enough.
Why E is wrong: Liability under the 1957 Act is fault-based (a duty of reasonable care), not strict.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Occupier's liability for a contractor's faulty work (Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2(4)(b))
Which of the following best describes Elmhurst's likely liability to Priya under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
Occupiers' duty to trespassers and no recovery for property damage (Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 s.1(3), (4) and (8))
Which of the following best describes Brightwell Homes Ltd's potential liability to Marcus?
Obvious risks and freely chosen dangerous activities (Tomlinson v Congleton BC)
Which of the following best describes the council's likely liability to Ollie?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.