Occupiers liability act 1984

Addie v dumbreck

It was held that there was no duty of care owed by occupiers to tresspassers

Herrington v brb

The house of lords used their 1966 practice statement and departed from thwie precedent in addie v dumbreck and held that a duty of common humanity was owed to trespassers this led to the occupirers liability act 1984

S1(1)(a)

Applies to those other than lawful visitos fo rinjury on the premises by reasons of any danger due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them

Danger must come from

The state of the premises or things odne or omitted to be done onthem not from the trespassers activity on the premises

When is a duty owe s1(3)

Occupier only owes a duty if

A) he is aware o fthe danger or had reasonable groungs to believe it exists

B) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that teh otehr is in teh vicinity of the danger or that he may come in to the vicintiy of the danger and

C) the risk is one against which he may be expected to offer the otehr some protection

The occupier will not be liable

If he was not awear of the dager or had no reason to supose the danger existed or if he had no reason to suspect the presence of a tresspasser and injured by an obvious danger

Higgs v foster

D was not liable although the employer knwe the pit was a potentiall danger they could no thave anticipaetd the officers presemce there or in the vuicinity

Tomlinson v congleton

Decision: D was not liable.

• It would be obvious that diving into a lake from the shallows was dangerous, especially given the warning sign

• The danger came more from C’s actions than the lake itself

• Therefore the ‘state of the premises’ was not dangerous

• The court said that where the risk was obvious, D needed to take very little precautions to ensure C’s safety

What is the ‘duty’? •S1(4) Occupier has a duty to:

􏰀‘take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that he (the trespasser) is not injured by reason of the danger.’

􏰀 How much care should the occupier take?

􏰀 As much as is reasonable in the circumstances

Children

SAME RULES apply to child visitors as adult visitors.

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

􏰀The danger of climbing the escape ladder was obvious and a result of C’s acts rather than the premises – it did not matter the child was particularly young here

Warning

S1(5) OLA ’84

Warning

An occupier can discharge (ie fulfil) his duty by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk

Westwood v Post Office

The sign was clear enough to discourage unauthorised people from entering

Therefore D was not liable

Remedies under the 1984 Act

Damages ONLY for personal injury