Can a claimant sue if they were not present on the premises?

Watch
makemyteapunk
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Hello! I am preparing for a moot, and I have a little question, which I have been stuck on for a good hour or so. The moot is about the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. It was about a man, who lent a car to his friend. The friend got lost, and thought to ask for directions; he parked at a property and left the car to go to the house, but the owner ran over the car with his tank shattering it beyond repair (strange, I know).

I am the senior counsel for the respondent, and I was just wondering if the claimant can actually sue even if he was not on the property at the time, and it was only his car that got ran over. If you could provide me with a relevant authority that would also be brilliant. Thanks.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
(Original post by makemyteapunk)
Hello! I am preparing for a moot, and I have a little question, which I have been stuck on for a good hour or so. The moot is about the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. It was about a man, who lent a car to his friend. The friend got lost, and thought to ask for directions; he parked at a property and left the car to go to the house, but the owner ran over the car with his tank shattering it beyond repair (strange, I know).

I am the senior counsel for the respondent, and I was just wondering if the claimant can actually sue even if he was not on the property at the time, and it was only his car that got ran over. If you could provide me with a relevant authority that would also be brilliant. Thanks.
Why is this about occupier's liability? Why isn't this about negligent driving of a tank?
0
reply
applicant2014
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
If I'm not mistaken, Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is only relevant to 'visitors' and damages are only recoverable when they happen due to the 'state' of the premise.

Is 'he' a visitor? Is there any express or implied permission given to him? And with regard to his car being ran over by a tank , can this be considered as a kind of damage arises due to the 'state' of the premise?
0
reply
makemyteapunk
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Why is this about occupier's liability? Why isn't this about negligent driving of a tank?
It's about both. The main point of this moot is for me to prove that the man who entered the premises is not a lawful visitor (hence the Act) and therefore the respondent did not owe duty of care - if I remember correctly, duty of care is not as high for "trespassers" as it is for visitors.
0
reply
makemyteapunk
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by applicant2014)
If I'm not mistaken, Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is only relevant to 'visitors' and damages are only recoverable when they happen due to the 'state' of the premise.

Is 'he' a visitor? Is there any express or implied permission given to him? And with regard to his car being ran over by a tank , can this be considered as a kind of damage arises due to the 'state' of the premise?
I have already looked at authorities and the Act to prove that he was not a lawful visitor. The moot only considers the 1957 Act, rather than the one of 1984, which talks about owing duty of care towards trespassers.

I mentioned that the respondent (tank driver) has no obligation to warn of an obvious risk - the driver would have easily spotted a tank, due to its size and the marks left on the property, if any.

What I'm confused about is how can the claimant sue the tank driver if he wasn't even present during the accident, but it was his car that got ran over. Surely it is his friend's fault (as he lent the car to him) as he was the one that entered the property after getting lost?

If you need more information about the moot then just Google Fussy v Tremens, and it'll come up.
0
reply
jeffalan
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
I am intrigued what happened with this. I am now junior counsel for the same moot and we are struggling a little!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What is your favourite revision method?

Taking notes manually (78)
20.63%
Note taking apps (7)
1.85%
Flashcards (86)
22.75%
Revision guides (19)
5.03%
Past papers (173)
45.77%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (15)
3.97%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed