Discuss how effectively the occupier’s liability acts 1957 and 1984 protect children and professional visitors.

Limitation under 1984 even for children

Children are held to the same standard as an adult. This means that even where a child has been playing in an area and been injured the simple fact, they were trespassing may prevent a claim. In Keown v Coventry NHS trust a child fell off a fire escape but no claim could be made as he was trespassing and falling off a fire escape in the manner he did would have been an obvious risk to an adult so being judged to the same standard it would have been obvious for him too. This clearly makes the act less effective at protecting children... 

Allurement

jolley v sutton, the principle of allurement under Glasgow Corporation v Taylor is that where a danger could be reasonable considering alluring to a child, extra steps must be taken to make it reasonably safe for children. In Jolley v Sutton two boys attempting to fix a boat abandoned by the council were crushed by it falling on them. It was decided here that allurement extends both to young teenagers and that allurement only requires a danger to be foreseeable not the exact type of danger the children created. This makes it far more effective by protecting children of all age ranges and protecting children from danger entirely not just in foreseeable situations. 

 

Professionals cannot claim if they fall below the standard required

This makes it less effective, Roles v Nathan chimney sweeps. However, this is fair as... 

Occupiers still expected to warn professionals of dangers

This makes it more effective by ensuring occupiers do not create unnecessary danger for professionals, case with surveyor in a warehouse Roles v Nathan 

Conclusion

Overall, it is effective