Occupier's Liability: 1957 - Covers Lawful visitors

s1(3)(a) 1957

Premises- A person having occupation or control of any “fixed or moveable structure, including a vessel, vehicle and aircraft“

s2(2) Duty to visitors

The common duty of care- To “take such care as in all circumstances…is it reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited…to be there.“

s2(3)(a) 1957

The common duty to children- Occupiers “…must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults [and as a result] the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age.“

s2(3)(b) 1957

Persons in the exercise of their calling (defence)- An occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will “…appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.“

s2(4)(b) 1957

independent contractors (defence)- Where the damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated as answerable for the danger if in all circumstances he had:

1. Acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and…

2. Had taken such steps as he reasonably ought to in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent.

3. And that the work was done properly.

s2(4)(a) 1957

Warning notices (defence)- A warning is ineffective unless “in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe”

s2(1) 1957

Exclusion clauses (defence)- An occupier can “restrict, modify or exclude his duty by agreement or otherwise“

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 Structure

1. What losses can be claimed for?

2. Who is an occupier?

3. What are the premises?

4. Who is classed as a visitor?

5. what is meant by ‘reasonably safe‘

What losses can be claimed for under s1(3)(b)?

Both personal injury and loss to property can be claimed for under the act.

Who is an occupier?

Not defined in the act. All it states is ‘person’s occupation or control of the premises‘. However, the owner or tenant of the premise is usually the occupier, although this does not have to be the case. (Wheat v Lacon) (Bailey v Armes-multiple/no occupiers)

Wheat v Lacon

Established a test that can determine who is an occupier depending on their ‘degree of control‘ over the premises.

Bailey v Armes (roof)

It is possible for there to be no occupiers.

What are premises under s3(1)(a)?

Premises, including land and buildings as well as the extended definition (Vehicle,vessels or aircraft).

Who is classed as a visitor?

-Invitees (persons who have been invited to enter and who have express or implied permission to be there)

-Licensees (implied permission, a person who may have express or implied permission to be on the land for a particular purpose e.g. customers)

-Contractual permission (for example, a person who has bought an entry ticket for an event)

-Statutory permission (such as meter readers)

s2(3)(a)

states that ‘an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults’ and by extension the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age. (Glasgow Corporation v Tyler)

Allurement (Glasglow Corporation v Taylor)

Children may be injured due to ________ but in ways that were unforeseeable. This does not matter as long as it was reasonably foreseeable that they could have suffered harm from the ______.

s2(3)(b) Duty owed to tradespeople

sets out that ‘an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so‘ (Roles v Nathan)

s2(4)(b) Independent contractor

where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances… (Haseldine v Daw)

s2(4)(a) warning notices

‘Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.’ (Rae v Marrs)

s2(1) Exclusion clauses

states ‘An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the “common duty of care“ to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.’