1. Does NDL owe a duty of care to John?
   1. Yes
      1. According to S1 of the Occupier's Liability Act (1984), occupiers have a duty of care to maintain their premises safe to visitors and trespassers (Select the icon to explore the Act)
      2. Was there a breach of that duty?
         1. Yes
            1. Based on the Occupier's Liability Act (1984), there was a breach. This is further buttressed by Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) as it could be reasonably foreseeable the proximity between the two parties (Select the icon to find out more)
         2. Did the breach cause John's injuries?
            1. Yes
            2. Did NDL know about the trespass?
            3. Yes
            4. Were steps taken to mitigate the risk?
            5. No
            6. This indicates negligence and a breach of duty of care for NDL as was the case in Paris v Stepney Borough Council. Select the icon to learn more
            7. Was John a trespasser?
            8. Yes
            9. As a trespasser John may have contributed to his injuries as was the case in Siddorn v Patel (2007). Select the icon to learn more
            10. Was John a child trespasser?
            11. Yes
            12. It can be reasonably expected that children would be tempted or allured onto vacant premises as was the case in British Railways Board v Herrington (1972). Consider too, Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006). Select the icon to find out more
            13. What is a likely excuse in favour of NDL?
            14. If it can be proven that: 1. John is a trespasser 2. The 'egg-skull shell' principle which means that John would have to take the premises in the state that he found them 3. The 'but-for' test and contributory negligence
            15. What is a likely excuse in favour of John?
            16. 1. The breach of the Occupier's Liability Act (1984) which establishes a duty of care to trespassers 2. He is a child trespasser
            17. No
            18. Was licence permission granted to use the warehouses to host parties?
            19. This was not revealed in the briefing and would require revision of the agreement. Implications: a licence means John had a right to be on the premises and the occupier has a duty of care to ensure safe environs
2. How to legally secure vacant property?
   1. Physically block all access points. This can be done through bolting, using locks and screen protective sitex. Select the icon to discover more about sitex
   2. Hire a security team and or use security cameras. Select the icon to explore the advantages and disadvantages of this method
   3. Post 'no trespassing' signs which contain visuals around the parameter. Select the icon to find out more
   4. Seek a civil injunction against trespassers. Select the icon to discover more about this method
3. Is the previous landowner liable to John?
   1. Is there an encumbrance in the contract to the previous landowner?
      1. Yes
         1. Then the previous owner may be liable if the encumbrance implicates him or her to injuries regarding trespass
      2. No
         1. The previous owner is not liable
   2. Were the rotten floorboards disclose at the time of purchase?
      1. Yes
         1. The previous owner is not liable
      2. No
         1. A court will consider 'caveat emptor' ie let the buyer beware and the previous owner will not be held liable. Select the icon for more information
4. What are possible solutions?
   1. Option 1: - Use a mediator to 1. offer to partially compensate for John's injuries 2. legally secure property 3. seek a civil injunction if trespass continues Select the icon for the pros and cons of this solution and for a brief explanation as to why this is the optimal route.
   2. Option 2: 1. Sue John or someone acting on his behalf for trespass 2. Legally secure property 3. Obtain a civil injunction Select the icon for an explanation of the pros and cons of this solution
   3. Option 3: 1. Do nothing Select the icon for a brief discussion on the pros and cons of this solution