Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Occupier

Occupier

Under s1(2) OLA 1957 an occupier is a person who would be treated as such under common law.

Wheat v Lacon

If D has a sufficient degree of control over a property, he is an occupier

Premises

s(1)(3)(a) OLA 1957 Any fixed or moveable structure

Lawful Visitors

Under s1(2) a lawful visitor is someone who would in common law have been treated as an invitee or licensee. This can be express or implied, it can be implied in of 4 ways

Lowery v Walker

If D knows of repeat visits but does nothing about it, C has implied permission to enter, so is a lawful visitor

Harvey v Plymouth CC

Implied permission to enter does not extend to reckless and dangerous activities

Jolley v Sutton BC

A child is a lawful visitor if he wanders on to land to investigate something that is both attractive and dangerous to children - doctrine of allurement

Robson v Hallett

There is an implied permission to walk up the front path of a house to the front door in order to communicate with the occupants

4) Statutory Powers of Entry

This can include meter readers, firemen, or a police officer with a warrant. These are lawful visitors even if the occupier objects.

s2(2) OLA 1957

“common duty of care” a duty to keep the visitor, rather than the premises, safe. The duty is to take reasonable care. Occupiers are not expected to guarantee the safety of lawful visitors

Variation in Duty

Children: under s2(3)(a) OLA 1957 an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. (Moloney v Lambeth LBC)

Moloney v Lambeth LBC

An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults - s2(3)(a)

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

An occupier is entitled to expect parents to take appropriate care of young children.

Roles v Nathan

An occupier may expect a specialist visitor to be aware of and protect himself against risks within his own specialism - s2(3)(b)

Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd

no reasonable system of checking for spillages could have detected the problem in time to prevent the accident, so D was NOT in breach of duty

s2(4) OLA 1957

D may be able to discharge his duty by providing reasonable warnings, whether implied (e.g. a fence or locked door) or express (notices).

Woollins v British Celanese

D WAS in breach of duty as the notice he had put up warning of a dangerous roof was not visible

s2(4)(b)

Independent Contractors -- Defences

Haseldine v Daw

For the defence of independent contractor to apply under s2(4)(b) it must be reasonable to bring an outside contractor in. (1)

Bottomley v Todmorden CC

For the defence of independent contractor to apply under s2(4)(b) the occupier must take reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent. (2)

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

For the defence of independent contractor to apply under s2(4)(b) the occupier must take reasonable steps to check the work is properly done (3)

Geary v JD Wetherspoon

Where C consents to a risk there is no duty to protect them. s2(5)

Ashdown v Samuel Williams

An occupier can exclude or restrict liability by putting up a sign that is clearly worded and visible - s2(1).

Remedies

Under s1(3) OLA 1957 he can also claim damages for damage to property (including damage to he property of others) and any consequential economic loss resulting from damage to property, such as the costs of recovery.