Occupier's liability 1957 case law

Furmedge v Chester DC

Premises are defined in the 1957 legislation as ‘fixed or moveable structures that include vessels, vehicles, and aircraft’. In this case it was judged a PVC structure being used as an walk-in art piece that lifted from the ropes and rolled killing two people fit the description and D was liable.

Wheat v E Lacon and Co

‘An occupier is someone who has a degree of control over the premises’ this may or may not be the owner. In this case both the company that owned the pub and their employee who ran the pub day to day were occupiers. However, neither were liable as the missing lightbulb that had caused the man to fall and die had been removed by a random stranger, so the occupier had no part in not making it reasonably safe.

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

A four year old wandered from her parents and into a derelict home. She was injured when she fell out of the window. The council had just served a compulsory purchase order meaning they had control and were liable for not boarding anything up or securing the premises.

Bailey v Armes

D lived above a supermarket and allowed their son to play on the roof. One day he took his friend up but they fell and got injured. It was ruled neither the supermarket, who could not access the roof, nor the parents, who did not own the roof, had enough control to be occupiers.

Matthewson v Crump

Crump owned a bungalow but had moved out to get the house expanded to two stories. A plasterer then came round to give a quote and fell through the floor. While she was the owner she had no control of construction safety at the time and could not be liable.

Types of lawful visitors

1. Invitees - persons invited to enter the property with express permission

2. Licensees - Persons who have an express of implied permission to be on the land for a particular period

3. Contractual permission - Ticket to an event for example

4. Statutory right - Meter readers, police with a warrant

Lowery v Walker

Villagers were in the habit of using D’s field as a shortcut which he was aware of. While he had said he didn’t like it he took no steps to deter trespassers so there was an implied consent. D then placed a ‘savage’ horse on this land without warning who attacked, as had happened before, a person as they crossed. D was liable.

Section 2(1) and 2(2) of 1954 legislation

(1) states a common duty of care exists

(2) defines this as ‘the duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’

Rochester cathedral v Debell

Claimant tripped on a protruding lump of concrete. It was held that tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences that should not be expected for the occupier to completely guard against and that the risk is reasonably foreseeable only where there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as needing remedy.

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

The takeaway had installed slip proof flooring and mopped where it was possible to. During a rush C managed to slipped. As steps had been taken to make the area reasonably safe D was not liable.

White Lion Hotel v James

The hotel had chosen not to install a safety feature to save £8. This choice meant James was able to jump from the window to kill himself. As the cost was so low for such a high risk they were found liable for this.

Bowen v National trust

C was hit by a branch that fell from a tree. Previously, NT had checked the branch but it had passed all their tests as safe to remain there. Therefore, they were not liable as they had taken steps to make it reasonably safe.

Geary v JD Wetherspoon

C slid down a large staircase at a Wetherspoons but fell of and was paralysed. This was the claimants fault so the business was not liable. It is not expected that the occupier removes all danger.

Moloney v Lambeth LBC

In this case a four year old fell through a gap in the guard rail that would have only been possible for someone of their size. The HoL decided that it was dangerous to a child and that children require a higher standard of care as they are unlikely to appreciate danger.

Phipps v Rochester corporation

A five year old and seven year old went searching for berries by a new build estate. The five year old fell in a trench ad broke his leg. It was decided that the parents should have had control of such young children and the fault was theirs not the housing corp.

Glasgow corporation v Taylor

A seven year old ate some berries off a bush in a botanical garden and died. There was no indication of the danger it would pose. Additionally, it was decided that berries would naturally attract young children and that more had to be done to protect them. This is the case that established allurement.

Jolley v Sutton

Two boys tried to winch up a boat the council had failed to move for 2 years when it fell injuring one. Allurement applied again. It was also decided that the type of harm did not need to be foreseeable just that any harm was foreseeable.

Roles v Nathan

Two chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning after ignoring warnings from a safety inspector. As there was a present safety inspector and their deaths were cause by risks inherent to their trade the defendant was not liable.

English Heritage v Taylor 

This case cleared up the warning signs area of this legislation. In this case the warning sign was present but too far from the actual danger to be a sufficient defence. A warning side within proximity is a valid defence to OL.

Rae v Mars

A surveyor was inspecting a dark warehouse when he fell in a pit. If there is a larger danger present then larger warning like barriers may be legally necessary. Normally a written or oral warning is sufficient

Darby v National Trust

This is the case for the defence of obvious dangers. D was swimming in a national trust lake when he drowned. The courts felt a risk of drowning in a lake was too obvious for signs to be warranted

Rules for independent contractors

1. It must have been reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to an independent contractor

2. The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task

3. If possible, the occupier should whether the work is properly done

If all three are satisfied the occupier has a complete defence

Haseldine v Daw and Son - Case for rule 1

The occupier hired a team to repair and maintain the lifts in their flat building. When a visitor came the lift snapped at the second floor and plummeted killing the man. The occupier was not liable for negligent care as lift maintenance is highly specialised and it was reasonable to give it to a contractor.

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club - for rule 2

The cricket club hired a completely incompetent man with no experience or insurance to hold a firework show and gave his gunpowder and fuel instead of fireworks. This caused an explosion injuring many people. It was ruled such a specialist, high risk event needed an insured and competent contractor so they were liable.

Woodwar v Mayor of Hastings - third rule

D hired a contractor to clear ice but did not check the work even though this would have been very possible. The contractors had left ice causing C to slip and get injured. Liable.

Consent as a defence

This comes under the same rules as negligence.