Occupiers' liability

What does occupiers’ liability concern?

Occupiers’ liability concerns harm arising from the state or condition of premises, or from things done or omitted during the occupation of those premises.

Which statute governs occupiers’ liability towards lawful visitors?

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 governs duties owed to lawful visitors.

What types of loss may a visitor recover under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

A lawful visitor may recover for personal injury, property damage and consequential economic loss.

Does the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 generally concern the state of premises or activities carried out on them?

It generally concerns dangers arising from the state or condition of the premises rather than dangers arising solely from the claimant’s activity.

What did Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council establish about activities and the state of premises under occupiers’ liability?

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council held that no liability arose where the claimant’s paralysis resulted from diving into a shallow lake, because the danger arose from the claimant’s activity rather than the state of the premises.

What duty does section 2(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 impose on an occupier?

Section 2(1) automatically imposes the common duty of care on an occupier towards all lawful visitors.

How is the common duty of care defined by section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which permission was given.

Must an occupier guarantee that every visitor is completely safe under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

No. The occupier must take reasonable care to make the visitor reasonably safe, rather than guarantee complete safety.

How is an “occupier” identified for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

An occupier is a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises.

Can there be more than one occupier of the same premises?

Yes. Several people may each have sufficient control over different areas or risks and therefore be occupiers.

What did Wheat v Lacon establish about identifying an occupier?

Wheat v Lacon established that both owners and managers may be occupiers where each has sufficient control over the risk-creating area.

Who is normally the occupier where a landlord does not live at the rented property?

The tenant will normally be the occupier because the tenant has control over the premises.

When may a landlord remain an occupier of part of rented premises?

A landlord may remain occupier of areas retained under their control, such as a shared stairway.

What is the occupier’s position where a landlord grants only a licence to use premises?

The landlord may remain the occupier because control of the premises has not been fully transferred.

Does an occupier generally cease to be responsible by employing an independent contractor?

No. An occupier generally remains responsible for the safety of the premises, subject to the independent-contractor exception in section 2(4)(b).

What factors indicate sufficient control to make someone an occupier under Bailey v Armes?

Relevant factors include immediate supervision and control of the premises and the power to permit or prohibit other people from entering.

Can a claimant be a lawful visitor in relation to one occupier but a trespasser in relation to another?

Yes. The claimant’s status must be assessed separately in relation to each alleged occupier.

What did Ferguson v Welsh establish about a claimant’s status in relation to multiple occupiers?

Ferguson v Welsh held that a worker engaged through an unauthorised subcontract could be a visitor in relation to the contractor but a trespasser in relation to the council.

How are “premises” defined under section 1(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Premises are defined broadly and include fixed and moveable structures, vessels, vehicles and aircraft.

Can a ladder constitute premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Yes. Wheeler v Copas established that a ladder can constitute premises.

Who is a “visitor” under section 1(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

A visitor is someone with express or implied permission to enter, including people entering under lawful authority or contractual permission.

What is express permission under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Express permission arises where the occupier directly authorises the claimant to enter or use the premises.

Can an occupier limit a visitor’s permission to a particular area?

Yes. Permission may be limited by clear notices or instructions restricting access to certain areas.

What did Pearson v Coleman Bros establish about restricting a visitor’s permission by area?

Pearson v Coleman Bros held that a child remained a visitor after entering a circus enclosure because there was no adequate warning restricting access.

What did Darby v National Trust establish about poorly positioned notices?

Darby v National Trust held that a poorly positioned “no swimming” notice was insufficient to terminate the claimant’s visitor status.

Can an occupier limit a visitor’s permission by time?

Yes. Permission may be limited to particular times, provided that the restriction is made sufficiently clear.

What did Stone v Taffe establish about unclear time restrictions on permission?

Stone v Taffe held that the claimant remained a visitor where the time restriction on permission was unclear.

Can an occupier limit a visitor’s permission by purpose?

Yes. A person may become a trespasser if they use the premises for a purpose outside the permission granted.

What did Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council establish about permission limited by purpose?

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council treated swimming in a shallow lake as outside the permitted use of the premises, making the claimant a trespasser for that activity.

What is implied permission under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Implied permission arises from conduct or circumstances indicating that the occupier permits entry, even without express words.

Why is a postman normally treated as a visitor under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

A postman ordinarily has implied permission to approach premises in order to deliver post.

What did Lowery v Walker establish about implied permission?

Lowery v Walker held that public use of land as a shortcut for 35 years gave rise to an implied licence.

How can an occupier prevent implied permission from arising?

The occupier may use clear notices, physical barriers or other reasonable steps to prevent or object to the use.

What did Edwards v Railway Executive establish about implied permission?

Edwards v Railway Executive held that regularly repairing a fence showed that the occupier objected to entry, so no implied permission arose.

Who enters premises under lawful authority for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Examples include police officers acting under a warrant and officials exercising a statutory right of entry under section 2(6).

What is contractual permission under section 5(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Contractual permission arises where the claimant has a contractual right to enter or use the premises.

What is the standard of care owed to visitors under section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The occupier must meet the objective standard of a reasonable occupier taking care to keep visitors reasonably safe.

Must an occupier account for a visitor’s known vulnerability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Yes. A reasonable occupier should take precautions against vulnerabilities of which they are aware.

What did Pollock v Cahill establish about vulnerable visitors?

Pollock v Cahill established that an occupier should take account of a visitor’s known blindness when considering reasonable precautions.

What standard of care is owed to child visitors under section 2(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and may therefore owe them a higher practical standard of protection.

Why may an allurement create a greater duty towards child visitors?

An object or condition attractive to children may foreseeably encourage them to approach or interfere with a danger.

What did Taylor v Glasgow City Council establish about allurements to children?

Taylor v Glasgow City Council held that poisonous berries attractive to children constituted an allurement and the occupier was in breach.

What did Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council establish about child visitors and abandoned objects?

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council held that children’s meddling with an abandoned boat was foreseeable and the occupier was in breach.

When may an occupier rely on parental supervision to protect a child visitor?

A reasonable occupier may assume that a very young child will ordinarily be supervised by a parent or guardian.

What did Phipps v Rochester Corporation establish about parental supervision?

Phipps v Rochester Corporation held that an occupier could reasonably expect parents to supervise a very young child.

What standard is owed to visitors entering premises in the exercise of their calling under section 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

An occupier may expect such visitors to guard against risks ordinarily incidental to their professional work.

What did Roles v Nathan establish about professional visitors?

Roles v Nathan held that chimney sweeps could be expected to guard against fumes that were a normal risk of their occupation.

Why was there no breach in Roles v Nathan?

The danger from fumes was an ordinary occupational risk against which the chimney sweeps could reasonably be expected to protect themselves.

How is breach assessed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The court applies ordinary negligence factors, including likelihood and magnitude of harm, social value, and the cost and practicality of precautions.

What did Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd establish about regular inspections?

Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd held that there was no breach where the danger was small and the occupier carried out regular inspections.

Are the occupier’s financial resources relevant when assessing reasonable precautions?

Yes. The court may consider the resources reasonably available to the occupier.

What did Laverton v Kiapasha establish about an occupier’s resources?

Laverton v Kiapasha recognised that a small business may have fewer resources available for preventative measures.

When will a warning discharge an occupier’s duty under section 2(4)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

A warning will discharge the duty only if it is sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe.

What information should an effective warning under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 contain?

It should adequately identify the danger, its location and how the visitor can avoid it.

What did Roles v Nathan establish about warnings under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Roles v Nathan held that an explicit warning about the fumes was sufficient to protect the occupier from liability.

Must an occupier warn visitors about every obvious danger?

No. A very obvious danger may not require a warning.

What did Staples v West Dorset District Council establish about obvious dangers?

Staples v West Dorset District Council held that an occupier did not need to warn against an obvious danger.

Is the common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 generally delegable?

No. The duty is generally non-delegable, although section 2(4)(b) provides an exception for work performed by an independent contractor.

When may an occupier escape liability for the negligence of an independent contractor under section 2(4)(b)?

The occupier must have acted reasonably in entrusting the work, selecting a competent contractor, and checking or supervising that the work was properly completed.

What is the first requirement for the independent-contractor defence under section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

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

What is the second requirement for the independent-contractor defence under section 2(4)(b)?

The occupier must have taken reasonable steps to select a competent contractor.

What is the third requirement for the independent-contractor defence under section 2(4)(b)?

The occupier must have taken reasonable steps to supervise or check that the work was properly completed.

What did Haseldine v Daw establish about technical work by independent contractors?

Haseldine v Daw held that an occupier was not required personally to inspect specialist lift repairs carried out by a competent contractor.

What did Woodward v Mayor of Hastings establish about checking independent contractors’ work?

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings held that an occupier could not rely on the contractor where an icy step was an obvious defect that the occupier could reasonably have discovered.

What causation principles apply to claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The ordinary principles of factual and legal causation apply, and the notes assume causation will generally be satisfied once breach and injury are established.

What remoteness principles apply to claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The ordinary negligence rules of remoteness apply, and the notes assume remoteness will generally be satisfied.

Which statutory provision recognises consent as a defence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Section 2(5) recognises the defence of consent.

What did Titchener v British Railways Board establish about consent by a visitor?

Titchener v British Railways Board held that a teenager who knowingly crossed a railway line accepted the obvious risk involved.

What did White v Blackmore establish about knowledge and consent in occupiers’ liability?

White v Blackmore held that consent requires full awareness of the relevant risk.

Which case is relevant to consent and contributory negligence involving a hotel window?

White Lion Hotel (A Partnership) v James is relevant to consent and contributory negligence under occupiers’ liability.

How is contributory negligence assessed under section 2(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

The court considers the degree of care and lack of care ordinarily expected from a visitor in the circumstances.

What did White Lion Hotel (A Partnership) v James establish about contributory negligence?

White Lion Hotel v James reduced damages by 60% where a hotel guest sat on a windowsill and fell because of a defective window.

How are child visitors assessed for contributory negligence?

A child is judged against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.

What did Young v Kent County Council establish about contributory negligence by a child visitor?

Young v Kent County Council reduced a child claimant’s damages by 50% after the child fell through a skylight.

Can illegality operate as a defence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

Yes. The ordinary illegality defence may be considered.

What is the difference between a warning and a disclaimer in occupiers’ liability?

A warning identifies a danger and explains how to avoid it, whereas a disclaimer attempts to exclude or restrict the occupier’s legal liability.

Which statute governs occupiers’ liability towards trespassers and other non-visitors?

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 governs duties owed to non-visitors and trespassers.

What loss is recoverable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Only physical injury, including qualifying mental conditions, is recoverable under sections 1(1)(a) and 1(9).

Can a trespasser recover property damage under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

No. The Act permits recovery only for physical injury, including qualifying mental conditions.

Does an occupier automatically owe a duty to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

No. A duty arises only if all three requirements in section 1(3) are satisfied.

What is the first requirement for a duty to a trespasser under section 1(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

The occupier must know of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe that it exists.

Is the occupier’s knowledge of danger under section 1(3)(a) assessed objectively?

Yes. A duty may arise where the occupier had reasonable grounds to know of the danger, even without actual knowledge.

What did Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd establish about unknown dangers?

Rhind v Astbury Water Park Ltd held that no duty arose where the dangerous hidden object was unknown to the occupier and there were no reasonable grounds to know of it.

What is the second requirement for a duty to a trespasser under section 1(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

The occupier must know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant is, or may come, into the vicinity of the danger.

Does the claimant need lawful authority to be in the vicinity for section 1(3)(b) to apply?

No. The section applies regardless of whether the claimant has legal authority to be there.

What did Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd establish about foreseeability of trespassers?

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd held that a winter night-time swimmer was not a foreseeable trespasser, so no duty was owed.

What did Swain v Natui Ram Puri establish about an occupier’s knowledge of trespassers?

Swain v Natui Ram Puri held that actual or reasonably inferred knowledge that trespassers may be present is required.

What is the third requirement for a duty to a trespasser under section 1(3)(c) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

The risk must be one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection in all the circumstances.

How is section 1(3)(c) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 assessed?

The court balances the cost of preventative measures against the foreseeability and seriousness of the injury.

What did Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council establish about obvious risks to trespassers?

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council held that an occupier was not required to protect a trespasser from an obvious, self-inflicted risk.

Who is a trespasser or non-visitor for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

A trespasser is someone on land without any invitation or permission, whose presence is unknown or actively objected to by the occupier.

Which case provides the traditional description of a trespasser?

Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck provides the traditional description of a trespasser.

How is an occupier defined under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Section 1(2)(a) adopts the same control-based concept of occupier used under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

How are premises defined under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Section 1(2) adopts the same broad definition of premises used under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

What standard of care is owed under section 1(4) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

The occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that the non-visitor does not suffer injury because of the danger concerned.

Is the standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 objective?

Yes. The occupier is judged against the standard of a reasonable occupier.

What factors are relevant when deciding breach under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Relevant factors include ordinary negligence considerations, whether the danger was hidden or obvious, its seriousness, the claimant’s age and purpose, the nature of the premises, and the foreseeability of trespassing.

Is the duty owed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as onerous as the duty owed to visitors under the 1957 Act?

No. The duty towards trespassers under the 1984 Act is less onerous.

What did Swain v Natui Ram Puri establish about breach towards trespassers?

Swain v Natui Ram Puri held that there was no breach where a fence was present and there was no history of trespassing.

What did Young v Kent County Council establish about breach under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?

Young v Kent County Council held that there was a breach where the occupier knew of the risk and could have remedied it cheaply.