Answer:

Cindy v Alpha
Based on the fact, claims will be brought by Cindy against Alpha for the injuries under
occupiers’ liability. To established occupier liability, we need to examine whether the injury
caused by the state of premises, anything done or not done by them under Section 1(1)
Occupiers Liability Act (OLA) 1957. According Ogwo v Taylor 1987, the court ruled that
fire is not considered as a state of premises because it inflicted by the defendant’s negligence
and hence OLA does not apply. It further affirmed in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton BC
(2003) by demonstrating OLA may apply to careless acts committed by the occupier or
anyone authorised by the occupier to be on the premises. However, in Shorten v Grafton
DGC 2000, court held that liability under OL is exists because claimant injured by the
kangaroo which considered as state of premises. Similar to Cindy’s situation, the wire that
was electro conducted amounted as state of premise and Cindy is get hurt because of it.
Moreover, we need to justify whether Alpha is an occupier for the house. Under s1(2) OLA
1957, it showed liability of those who have occupation or control or those who would be
considered an occupier under common law. In Wheat v Lacon 1966, it showed that
sufficient degree of control counted to be an occupier. In facts, Alpha will be considered as
the occupier of the house because the house being brought and owned by him. Therefore,
Cindy’s injury is caused by the state of premises and Alpha considered as the occupier of this
house.
Furthermore, Cindy needs to prove that she was a lawful visitor at the time she injured
herself. Following s.1(2) OLA 1957, it illustrated that a lawful visitor usually has the
permission, invitation, or licence to allowed them entering. In this situation, Cindy considered
as a lawful visitor because she entered with the permission granted by Alpha and Alpha hired
her as a realtor. Since we have proved that Cindy is a lawful visitor, Cindy is owed a duty of
care under s.2(1) OLA 1957 and a standard of care under s.2(2) OLA 1957, which states that
the occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe while using
the premises for permitted purposes. For example, in Dunster v Abbott 1953, it implied that
duty of care of an occupier is related to the static and physical conditions of the premises, the
duty do not extent to careless acts.
However, Alpha could argue about occupier would not liable for the faulty execution of work
carried out by the independence contractors under s.2(4)(b) OLA 1957. However, in
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings 1954 and Bottomley 2003, defendant in breach of OL
because they failed to check the work that has been assigned to independent contractor in
order to eliminate the danger. Alpha failed to ensure the renovation that carried out by Busey
the handyman will provide a safety environment for visitor. Additionally, in Naylor v
Payling 2004, the court held that occupier not in breach because he hired the doorman
(independent contractor) got licensed and being certified. Since Busey is not a qualified
electrician and he fixed a broken switch, the liability of caused Cindy injured more likely will
fall under Alpha.
Apart from that, regarding the facts that Cindy has attended an induction course at her
workplace about common dangers in house viewings including electrical fittings previous
week, Alpha might be able to argue about s.2(3)(b) OLA 1957. S.2(3)(b) OLA 1957
demonstrated that occupant may expect skilled visitor to guard against special risk normally
associated with his/her occupation. As a realtor, who attended an induction course, it is
reasonably to adopt the risk of being injured by an exposed live wire which amount to
common dangers in the course of her duty like Neame v Johnson 1991. In short, Alpha
would be more likely to liable for Cindy’s claim under OLA 1957.
Dorian v Alpha
On the other hand, we need to justify whether Dorian is able to claim his injury from Alpha.
To establish occupier liability, we need to proof that the injury caused by the state of
building. Apparently, Dorian felt down because being an old house the balusters were widely
spaced. Subsequently, as mentioned before, Alpha is the occupier of this house because he
has the sufficient control of it. Dorian treated as lawful visitor also because she accompanied
by another agent with his mother who interested to buy. Dorian is likely to apply the same
duty of care and standard of care aforementioned. Since Dorian is a child aged 4. Dorian is
likely to be dealt with as child visitor. Under s.2(3)(a) OLA 1957, occupier should be more
prepared and careful about children compare to adult. In Moloney v Lambeth BC 1966,
defendant liable for failing taking sufficient care about the safety of children because the gap
in balustrade is big enough for children to fall. Contrastingly, in Bourne Leisure v Marsden
2009, the court held that no liability should be imposed on defendant because the child
momentarily escaped his mother attention and drowned in pond. The importance of parental
responsibility could be found in Phipps v Rochester 1955 because parents expected to watch
over their child and escape from danger. Here, Dorian’s mother was deep in conversation
with the agent and left unsupervised Dorian climbed the stair and sustain injuries. Thus, the
claim that Dorian brought to Alpha would be unlikely to be successful.
Edmund v Alpha
Aside from the Dorian’s issues, we need to investigate that whether Alpha is liable for
Edmund serious head injury. We need to justify that the injury caused by the state of
premises, anything done or not done on them in order to establish occupier liability.
Obviously, Edmund injured because of he is carrying out some dangerous act on the
premises, by ignored the instructions and decide to have a peak. Hence, it is unlikely for
Alpha to be liable.
Next, In Anderson v Coutts 1894, court held that even defendant given the permission to
enter, if the defendant exceeds the restriction of it, he will amount to trespasser. Following…
Similar to Edmund’s circumstances, at the point of Edmund get injured, Edmund considers as
a trespasser even though he is a prospective purchaser because he exceeded the permission.
Furthermore, under section 1(3) OLA 1984, there are three criteria need to be satisfied to
prove occupier owe trespasser a duty of care. First, occupier has no reason to believe there is
a danger when sufficient warning is given as shown in Tomlinson 2003. In this situation, all
prospective purchasers viewing the property were warned forcefully and repeatedly by the
agents not to go into the garage because it is unsafe with, the instruction given by Alpha.
However, Edmund could argue that there is no sufficient warning provided because the
internal access door was not locked and carried no warning notice. It supported by S.1(5)
OLA 1984 states duty to trespasser may be discharged by giving warning of danger such as
Westwood v Post Office 1973 by placing a notice. Secondly, claimant acknowledged that
someone was in the vicinity of danger as demonstrated in White v St. Albans CC 1990. It is
believed that Alpha did know that Edmund was in danger since he has given the instruction to
prevent all prospective purchasers to enter the garage. Third, examine the type of danger
which required protection by occupier. Alpha should not be liable on Edmund’s head injury
because Alpha is not expected to guard, and Edmund chose to enter the garage on his own
risk alike Tomlinson 2003. Hence, Alpha did not owe Edmund, trespasser, a duty of care
since the test under s1(3) OLA 1984 is failed.
Yet, Alpha could apply the defences under s.1(6) OLA 1984, which demonstrate that
defendant would not be liable where claimant knew the risk and assumed the same. Based on
the facts, it showed that Edmund knew the risk of entering the garage and hence Alpha is
unlikely to be liable on his serious injury.
(1358 words)