Occupiers Liability 1957

Occupiers Liability

Liability of an occupier to both visitors and persons other than visitors to his or her premises

What does OLA 57 cover?

Visitors

Who is an occupier?

Act does not define who is an occupier but the applied test is who as occupational control; This means who has control over the premises and can be more than one person

Wheat V Lacon - types of occupier

1. If a landlord lets the premises then the tenant is the occupier

2. If the landlord lets part of the building then the tenant is occupier of those certain areas where’s landlord retains control of other

3. Owner licenses a person to use premises but reserves the right of entry then they remain occupier

4. Contractors are employed to carry out work on premises but owner generally remains the occupier

Premises

Fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle and aircraft

Vistors

A person who has express or implied permission to enter the premises; The occupier owes a lawful visitor the common duty of care however this differs between adults, children and workmen

Vistors - implied consent

Right enter for particular period such as delivery person

Visitors - contractual permission

A tradesperson

Visitors - statutory right to enter

Right to enter by law such as police and firefighters

Visitor - limited permission

Right to enter one part but not the other i.e. right to use the stairs but not slide down the banister (The Calgarth)

Adult visitors

D owes common duty of care to all lawful visitors; To take care as to see the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted to be there - this does not mean the premises must be completed safe but reasonably safe

Laverton

Takeaway shop fitted slip resistant tiles and regularly mopped during the rain; C went in and slipped breaking her ankle; Not liable as they did not have to make shop completely safe and customers should take reasonable care for their own safety

Children visitors

Occupier owns common duty of care as well as additional duty to children which is higher than the standard for adults; Act states the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and should make it reasonably safe for a child of that age; Occupier should guard against any allurement which places a child visitor at harm

Glasgow Corp V Taylor

7 year old ate poisonous berries in public park; D was liable as they should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and make the premises reasonably safe for a child of that age.

Visitors - tradespeople

Occupier owes a common duty of care whoever can expect that a person in exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks; Occupier will not be label if tradesperson fails to guard against risks they should know about

Role V Nathan

Chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning; Occupier not liable as they should be aware of the particular danger

Independent contractors

If a visitor is injured by a Workmans negligent work, the occupier may have a defence and be able to pass on the claim

1. Must be reasonable for occupier to give work to independent contractor; The more complicated and specialist the work the more likely to be reasonable

2. Contractor must be competent meaning occupier must check references, qualifications and insurance etc.

3. Occupier must check work is properly done; The more complicated the work, the more likely the condition will require the employment of an expert to check the work

Haseldine

C killed in a lift; Occupier was not negligent as it was a highly specialist activity and therefore reasonable for D to give to contractor and not reasonable for D to check the work is correct

Woodward V Mayor Hastings

Child injured on icy steps at school; Occupiers liable as they had failed to take reasonable steps to check the work was done properly

Defences

• Consent

• Contributory negligence

• Warning notices

• Exclusion clauses

Warning notice

• Can be oral or written

• Warning is ineffective unless in all circumstance it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe

• in extremely dangerous premises, the occupier may be required to erect barriers (Rae V Marrs)

• If danger is obvious and visitor is able to appreciate it, then additional warning sign is not necessary

Exclusion clauses

• Similar to warning but occupier states they are not going to be libel for any damage or injuries causes

• Sign must be clear and visible before the person enters the premises