Occupier Liability 1984

Historical context

Traditionally did not owe a duty of care towards trespassers other than to not deliberately inflict injury

Duty of care

Occupier will only owe a duty of care if:

1. He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists

2. He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of danger or may come into vicinity if danger

3. The risk is one of which in all circumstances he may be expected to offer some protection

Factors considered when taking precautions

• Nature of premises

• Degree of danger

• Practicality of precautions

• Age of trespasser

Obvious danger

Occupier will not be liable if trespasser is injured by an obvious danger and does not need to spend lots of money to make the premises safe for them

Ratcliff V McConnell

19 year old student climbed over the fence and was injured diving into a pool; Held that occupiers are not required to warn adult trespassers of obvious dangers

Tomlinson

Occupier does not need to spend lots of money in order to make premises safe from obvious dangers

Higgs V Foster

Occupiers are not liable if they have no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser; Police officer investigating crime fell into uncovered chamber. Occupiers not liable as police had no warrant and therefore was an unexpected trespasser

Knowledge of danger

Not liable if occupier did not know they danger existed and had no reason to suspect the danger existed

Child trespassers

are considered less responsible therefore occupiers should guard against this

Platt V Liverpool City Council

Child trespasser killed in derelict house which collapse; House was boarded up, fenced off and checked meaning no liability as reasonable precautions had been taken