Occupier Liability

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

For claims brought by lawful visitors

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

For claims brought by trespassers

Definition

Duty of Care that property owners or occupiers owe to individuals who enter their premises

Wheat V Lacon (occupier)

Both the brewery and the manager of the pub due to the brewery owning the public house

Premises

A fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft

Laverton V Kiapasha Takeaway supreme (occupier must take reasonable care)

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• An employee was cleaning the floor in a takeaway shop 🧼

• The floor was wet and slippery

• A customer slipped and got injured

• The employer was accused of negligence

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The employer was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The employee had taken reasonable care

  • Cleaning the floor is necessary, and some risk is unavoidable

  • The system in place was considered reasonable

Dean and chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (occupier must take reasonable care)

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• The case involved a slip/trip accident on cathedral property ⛪

• The claimant argued the surface/path was unsafe

• The defendant (cathedral authority) argued the risk was minor and obvious

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The defendant was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The defect was too small/trivial to be dangerous

  • The law does not require perfection in maintaining land

  • Visitors are expected to take reasonable care for their own safety

Glasgow v Taylor (children)

Council were liable as they were aware of the danger and that the children would be allured by the berries

Jolley v Sutton (children)

Council was liable as it was foreseeable that children (14) would play on the abandoned boat

Phipps v Rochester (children)

Council was not liable as the court decided that the occupier is entitled to expect that parents would not let young children to go to unsafe areas.

Roles v Nathan (Professional visitors will guard against their own risk)

AS they could expect that the chimney sweeps to be aware of potential dangers.

Rea v Mars (Warnings)

Mind your step sign displayed

sign did not warn about the large, deep pit in the dark warehouse.

Haseldine v Daw (reasonable to entrust the work to a contracter)

Work involved repairing a lift and it was highly technical and specialised work

Bottomley v Todmorden (checked that the contractor was competent)

Failed to properly check his qualifications and experience

Woodward v Hastings (checked the work had been done properly)

Contractor has asked to clear snow from school steps and for the occupier it would of been easy visually inspect the steps.

Trespasser

Person who has no permission to be in the occupier’s premises

s.1(3) Says that a duty of care is only owned to a trespasser if:

• The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists (should be aware)

• The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to know that trespassers are or might come into the vicinity of the danger

• danger is the type of danger which the occupier could reasonably provide protection against.

Rhind v Astbury

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• A man went to a water park/lake 🌊

• He dived into shallow water and suffered serious injury

• The danger (shallow water) was obvious

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The defendant was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The risk was obvious to a reasonable person

  • Under occupiers’ liability law, there is no duty to warn of obvious risks

Higgs v Foster

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• A claimant visited a farmyard/field area 🐮

• She fell into a hidden slurry pit/manure hole

• The hazard was not clearly visible or marked

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The occupier was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The risk was considered obvious in context of a farm environment

  • Visitors are expected to take care in rural/farm settings

  • The danger was not treated as one requiring special warning in law

Tomlinson v Congleton

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• A man went swimming in a lake in a public park 🌊

• There were signs saying “No swimming” 🚫

• He dived in and suffered a serious spinal injury

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The council was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The risk came from the claimant choosing to ignore obvious warnings

  • Occupiers are not required to prevent people from acting irresponsibly

  • The law does not protect against self-inflicted obvious risks

Keown v Coventry

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• A child climbed on a fire escape / hospital structure 🧗

• He fell and was injured

• The structure was not dangerous in itself, but became risky when misused

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The defendant was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The injury came from the child’s misuse of a safe structure

  • The danger was created by how it was used, not its condition

  • Occupiers are not required to prevent all foreseeable misuse

Westwood v Post Office

🧠 Key Facts (What happened?)

• A Post Office employee (tradesman) was injured

• He tried to claim damages from his employer

• The issue was whether the employer was responsible for his injury circumstances

---

⚖ Decision (What did the court say?)

• The employer was NOT liable ❌

• Why?

  • The injury arose from the claimant’s own actions/position, not employer fault

  • No breach of duty or responsibility by the employer was proven

  • The employer is not an insurer against all workplace harm