occupiers' liabilty

occupiers' liability

is a branch of negligence. Whilst negligence is a common law tort created by judges, occupiers' liability has been created by statute

laws

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
- an occupier of premises owes a duty of care to lawful visitor
Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
- an occupier owes a duty of care to trespassers

cases

wheat 1966
- both the manager and his employers
harris 1976
- the local council
Bailey v Armes
- the C/A decided that no-one was in control of the premises and so the injured wisitor was left with no claim

trespassers

traditionally, at common law, an occupier owed a trespasser no duty at all, other than to not deliberately or recklessly inflict injury
- Addie v Dumbreck
kid fell through the unprotected cover of a wheel on colliery land

s.1(1)(a) OLA 1984

statea that a duty applies in respect of people other than lawful visitors for:
'injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the stat eof the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them

child trespassers

the same statutory rules apply to child trespassers as for adult trespassers

what is the duty to do under s.1(4)

to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the trespasser is not injured by reason of the danger

adult trespassers

- Donoghue v Folkstone Properties
- Rhind v Astbury water park
- Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council
- Higgs v Foster
- Ratcliffe v Mcconnell

child trespassers

- Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
- an 11 yrs. boy climbed a fire escape on the exterior of a hospital to show off to his friends and fell
-C/A held that since the child appreciated the danger, it was not the state of the premises at fault, it was what the boy was doing on the fire escape

child trespassers

- Baldaccino v West Wittering
- on a summers' day a 14 yrs. boy climbed a navigational beacon sited off a beach at the tide was ebbing. He dived off the beacon suffering neck injuries and tetraplegia
- he was a lawful visitor to the beach but not to the beacon. there was no duty on the occupiers to warn against obvious danger and the injuries did not result from the state of the premises

defences

at there are to defences to claims by trespassers:
Contributory negligence Concent
(Volenti non fir injuria)
in addition to this there is another way to avoid liability:
Warning notices

Contributory negligence

if the claiment is partly to blame for the injuries then the amount of compenstion will be reduced

consent

if successfully argued D will not be liable and will not to pay any damages

defences

- a warning can be an effective defence, especially to an adult visitor, if it warns of the danger in clear terms
- whether a warning will be sufficient for a child trespasser will depend on the age and understanding of the child.

Westwood v Post Office

- the claimant was as employes of the Post Office and was injured when he entered, as a trespasser, an unlocked room which had a notice 'only the authorised attendant's permitted to enter'. the door should have been locked
- the defendant were not liable as the notice was a sufficient warning to an adult

Remedies

if the occupier is liable for breach of his duty, the remedy to be claimed by the trespasser is damages for personal injury only

2(3)b - tradesmen
2(3)a - children