Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 And 1984

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Stephen1976
S
Stephen1976
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1 | Total Attempts: 459
Questions: 7 | Attempts: 459

SettingsSettingsSettings
Act Quizzes & Trivia

Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge on Occupiers’ liability


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    1. Which of the following are accurate statements about occupiers? (i) an occupier is a person in control of the premises(ii) an occupier may be someone with legal rather than physical control of the premises(iii) there is no real statutory definition of occupier in either Act(iv) dual occupation is possible for the purposes of the Acts

    • A.

      All of these statements

    • B.

      None of these statements

    • C.

      (i), (ii) and (iv)

    • D.

      (iii) and (iv)

    Correct Answer
    A. All of these statements
    Explanation
    All of the statements are accurate. An occupier can be a person who has physical control of the premises, but it can also be someone who has legal control over the premises. There is no specific statutory definition of an occupier in either Act, which means that it can vary depending on the circumstances. Dual occupation is also possible, meaning that multiple individuals or entities can be considered occupiers for the purposes of the Acts.

    Rate this question:

  • 2. 

    Which of the following types of visitor are not covered under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts?

    • A.

      Invitees

    • B.

      trespassers

    • C.

      Those using a public right of way

    • D.

      Those having a legal right to enter

    Correct Answer
    C. Those using a public right of way
    Explanation
    The Occupiers' Liability Acts cover the legal responsibilities of occupiers towards visitors on their premises. Invitees, trespassers, and those having a legal right to enter are all types of visitors that are covered under these Acts. However, those using a public right of way are not specifically mentioned as being covered. Therefore, they would be the correct answer as they are not included in the types of visitors protected by the Occupiers' Liability Acts.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Which of the following is the most accurate paraphrase of the scope of the duty owed in s2(2) of the 1957 Act?

    • A.

      The occupier must make the premises reasonably safe

    • B.

      The occupier must make the premises reasonably safe for the purpose of the visit

    • C.

      The occupier must keep the visitor reasonably safe

    • D.

      The occupier must keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose of his visit

    Correct Answer
    D. The occupier must keep the visitor reasonably safe for the purpose of his visit
    Explanation
    The duty owed in s2(2) of the 1957 Act requires the occupier to keep the visitor reasonably safe while they are on the premises for the purpose of their visit.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    Which of the cases below is the most appropriate precedent to apply in the following scenario? Sam, aged four, is badly injured when he climbs onto a display of wines in an off-licence and the display collapses under him. Sam’s parents have left him unattended while they look for the cheapest whisky.

    • A.

      Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

    • B.

      Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

    • C.

      Phipps v Rochester Corporation

    • D.

      Roles v Nathan

    Correct Answer
    C. Phipps v Rochester Corporation
    Explanation
    In Phipps v Rochester Corporation, a child was injured when he fell into a trench that was left open by the defendant. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the child's injuries because the child's parents had failed to properly supervise him. This case is the most appropriate precedent to apply in the given scenario because it involves a child being injured due to the negligence of their parents in failing to supervise them. Similarly, in the given scenario, Sam's parents have left him unattended, which can be seen as negligence on their part.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    Which is the odd one out in the following list of elements which, if proved, may enable an occupier to avoid liability where the damage is caused by the work of an independent contractor?

    • A.

      It must be reasonable for the occupier to entrust the work to an independent contractor

    • B.

      The occupier must have chosen a competent contractor for the particular work

    • C.

      the independent contractor must be insured

    • D.

      The occupier must have checked the work (provided it is not too technical)

    Correct Answer
    C. the independent contractor must be insured
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "the independent contractor must be insured" because it is the only statement that is not a requirement for an occupier to avoid liability. The other statements explain the conditions that must be met for an occupier to avoid liability, such as entrusting the work to a competent contractor, checking the work, and ensuring that it is reasonable to hire an independent contractor. However, insurance coverage for the independent contractor is not mentioned as a requirement in avoiding liability.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

     Identify the group of three words from the list below that accurately fill the gaps in the following statement: An occupier is only liable under the 1984 Act if he is aware of the ……….. or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists; he ……… or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger; the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other som

    • A.

      ‘danger’, ‘knows’ and ‘protection’

    • B.

      ‘danger’. ‘believes’ and ‘protection’

    • C.

      ‘risk’, ‘knows’ and ‘protection’

    • D.

      ‘risk’, ‘believes’ and ‘safety’

    Correct Answer
    A. ‘danger’, ‘knows’ and ‘protection’
    Explanation
    The correct answer is 'danger', 'knows' and 'protection'. In the statement, it is mentioned that an occupier is only liable under the 1984 Act if he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists. This indicates that the occupier needs to have knowledge or belief about the danger. Additionally, the statement mentions that the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the other person protection. Therefore, the words 'danger', 'knows', and 'protection' accurately fill the gaps in the statement.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    In which of the following situations is there likely to be any liability under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957: (i) Amanda an electric meter reader walks across Brenda’s lawn to pick flowers from a flower bed and is injured when her foot catches in a hole which is invisible because of the length of the grass.(ii) Carter, a roofing contractor, is injured when he falls off the roof while repairing Delia’s pitched roof. Carter has failed to put up safety rails or use roof ladders. (iii) Ewan, a postman, is electrocuted when he rings the doorbell on Frank’s house to get a signature for a recorded delivery letter. Frank has recently wired the doorbell himself.(iv) As he is backing down his drive in his car, George fails to look behind him and carelessly runs over Helen, the paper girl who is delivering the evening paper.

    • A.

      (i) only

    • B.

      (ii) and (iv)

    • C.

      (iii) only

    • D.

      (iii) and (iv)

    Correct Answer
    C. (iii) only
    Explanation
    In situation (iii), there is likely to be liability under the Occupier's Liability Act 1957. This is because Frank, as the occupier of the house, has recently wired the doorbell himself, which resulted in Ewan, the postman, being electrocuted when he rang the doorbell. The Act imposes a duty of care on occupiers to ensure the safety of visitors on their premises, and in this case, Frank's actions in wiring the doorbell himself could be seen as a breach of that duty.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • May 14, 2010
    Quiz Created by
    Stephen1976
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.