The criteria in s 1(3)(a)–(c) were considered in both Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996) PIPR P442 and Young v Kent County Council (2005) LAWTEL, both involving young boys climbing on roofs. In Swain the Court of Appeal rejected the claim as [...]. In contrast, in Young, the defendant council where found liable for the claimant’s injury as children climbing on a school roof was a known risk which they had failed to protect against despite there being a low cost solution.
Answer
there was no evidence of previous trespassing and the precautions taken, e.g. fencing, were sufficient
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
The criteria in s 1(3)(a)–(c) were considered in both Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996) PIPR P442 and Young v Kent County Council (2005) LAWTEL, both involving young boys climbing on roofs. In Swain the Court of Appeal rejected the claim as [...]. In contrast, in Young, the defendant council where found liable for the claimant’s injury as children climbing on a school roof was a known risk which they had failed to protect against despite there being a low cost solution.
Answer
?
Tags
#occupiers-liability #tort
Question
The criteria in s 1(3)(a)–(c) were considered in both Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996) PIPR P442 and Young v Kent County Council (2005) LAWTEL, both involving young boys climbing on roofs. In Swain the Court of Appeal rejected the claim as [...]. In contrast, in Young, the defendant council where found liable for the claimant’s injury as children climbing on a school roof was a known risk which they had failed to protect against despite there being a low cost solution.
Answer
there was no evidence of previous trespassing and the precautions taken, e.g. fencing, were sufficient
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it an>The criteria in s 1(3)(a)–(c) were considered in both Swain v Natui Ram Puri (1996) PIPR P442 and Young v Kent County Council (2005) LAWTEL, both involving young boys climbing on roofs. In Swain the Court of Appeal rejected the claim as <span>there was no evidence of previous trespassing and the precautions taken, e.g. fencing, were sufficient. In contrast, in Young, the defendant council where found liable for the claimant’s injury as children climbing on a school roof was a known risk which they had failed to protect agai
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.