Occupiers Liabilty- cases

What is occupiers liability?

It is a branch of tort law that deals with the duty owed by occupiers of premises towards visitors and to trespassers. It is created from statute.

What are the two acts of occupiers and what do they cover?

Occupiers Liability Act 1957- lawful visitors

Occupiers Liability Act 1984- trespassers

Who is an occupier?

There is no statute definition

Likely to be the owner or tenant.

Use case law

Wheat v E. Lacon & Co Ltd 1966

The managers of a pub letting out rooms in his private quarters had permission from owners.

Customer fell on an unlit staircase and died.

Outcome:

Both manager and owner liable as they’re can be more than one occupier.

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation 1976

Four year old boy got injured in an empty house owned by the council, because the council had not boarded up the house.

Outcome:

Liable

As they had effective control over the property

Bailey v Armes 1999

Defendant lived in flat above supermarket, son playing on roof with his friend.

Outcome:

Court found that the supermarket and people living in the flat were not liable as far as the roof was concerned as they did not have sufficient control over it.

What are premises?

S1(3)(A)

A person having occupation or control of any ‘land and buildings including any fixed or moveable structures including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft‘.

What is the duty of care owed to adults?

S2(2)

Take such care as in all circumstances is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for which he is invited to be there

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme 2002

Defendants owners of takeaway used mop and slip resistant tiles, claimant drunk, fell over.

Outcome:

Shop owners had taken reasonable steps to ensure their customers were reasonably safe but don’t have to make sure it’s completely safe. Failed in claim so not liable.

Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016

tripped by concrete sticking out.

Outcome:

Tripping, slipping and falling everyday occurrences

Only have to make it reasonable safe.

Cole v Davis- Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others

Woman trapped foot in hole for maypole

Outcome: purely accidental

What is the duty owed to children in 1957?

S2(3)

The occupier 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

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor 1922

7 year old ate poison berries from bush in public park and died.

Outcome:

Aware of danger, allurement to young children. Found liable

Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1955

5 and 7 year old

5 year old fell into trench at public park

Outcome: council not liable, as it is the parents responsibility and shouldn’t leave children unsupervised.

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton 2000

Council failed to move abandoned boat, been there for two years. 14 year old injured when boat fell on him.

Outcome:

Liable

A danger- the exact way it was caused does not have to be known.

What is the liability for tradespeople in 1957?

S2(3)(b)

The 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

Roles v Nathan 1963

Two chimney sweepers died from inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while cleaning were warned of the danger.

Outcome: not liable

They were chimney sweepers are expected to be aware of this danger.

What is the liability for independent contractors under 1957?

S2(4)

Providing that the occupier has behaved reasonably in all circumstances checking that the independent contractors was competent and had taken reasonable steps to check all the work was done properly then he can pass on the liability.

Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd 1941

claimant worked for maintenance company killed when life plunged.

Outcome

Not liable

Negligent repair

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club 2003

Used different stuff than usual for fireworks

Outcome:

Liable failed to exercise reasonable care to chose safe and competent contractor.

What are the available defences under 1957?

Contributory Negligence

Consent

Warning notice

What are warning notices?

S2(4)(a)

A warning is ineffective unless in all circumstances it was enough to keep the visitor reasonably safe.

Cases:

Rae v Marrs UK Ltd 1990

Staples v Wes Dorset District Council 1995

What is Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Trespassers-unlawful visitors

S1(1)

Injuries on premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or not done to them.

Only covers personal injury

What is S1(3) and s1(4) of 1984?

S1(3)

A duty is owed by the occupier where he is aware of the danger or has reasonable ground to believe it exists, the vicinity of danger.

S1(4)

The duty is to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that he is not injured by the reason of the danger.

Standard of care is objective

Adult trespassers what is rule under Occupiers 1984

The occupier will not be liable if the trespasser is injured by an obvious danger. The day, time of year when the accident happened will be relevant for whether a duty is owed.

Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)

19 year old student climbed the fence of his college swimming pool at night, and dived into pool, hit head, seriously injured.

Not liable, not required to warn against obvious dangers.

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003)

Claimant was injured when trespassing, on a slip in a harbour and dived into the sea. The grid pile was used for mooring boats and could be seen at low tide, the injury happened at mid winter at midnight.

No duty of care, no expectation that trespasser is present or would jump.

KEY CASE: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Attempted to turn a disused quarry into a beauty spot and county park by turning the quarry into an artificial lake. Prohibited swimming, had signs and park rangers.

Claimant ignored signs, dived in, broke his neck.

Outcome: Not liable

H of L

• the danger of the lake

• The risk of danger was obvious

• Only a reasonable amount of money should be spent to prevent injury

If the occupier had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser, then he will not be liable.

Higgs v Foster (2004)

A police officer investigating a crime entered the occupier’s premises, he fell into an uncovered inspection pit causing severe injuries.

Outcome: trespasser knew pit was a danger, not liable, couldn’t have anticipated his presence.

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)

Occupier unaware of a container at the bottom of a lake on its premises. Claimant ignored signs that said private property strictly no swimming and jumped into lake and injured by an object.

Outcome: court applied s1(3)

But as the occupier did not know of the dangerous objects under the water no duty was owed.

With children do the same rules apply under Occupiers 1984?

Yes, the same rules apply to children.

British Rail Board v Herrington 1972

6 year old boy badly injured when trespassing onto railway lines through vandalised fencing

Outcome

Created a common duty of humanity

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

11 year old boy, climbed up a fire escape on the exterior of a hospital and fell off.

C of A

Said the boy realised the danger, knew what he was doing, his fault.

Baldacchino v West Wittering (2008)

14 year old boy climbed onto navigational beacon, tide going out, when he dived off, suffered neck injuries and tetraplegia.

Outcome: lawful visitor on beach but trespasser on beacon, no duty to warn against obvious dangers, injuries did not result from the state of the beacon and so his claim failed.

What section covers warnings for trespassers ?

S1(5)

-occupier can discharge their duty ( show that they have done to safeguard potential trespassers)

• they take such steps in all circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or discourage persons from incurring the risk

• So a well placed notice that gives an idea of the risk or danger and discourages potential trespassers should be sufficient.