evaluation of occupiers liability as a whole

First point

The broad definitions of occupier and premises makes the flexible abut could potentially overextend lability

Explain the broad definition of occupier and premise

The broad definition can make the law flexible and increase clarity for visitors and claimants

Case example for broad definition of occupier

Wheat - occupier= anyone with occupational control and there can be more than one occupier on the premises

Explain why this more than one occupier is fair

Ensures that there is always accountability and supports fairness to the public b prioritising control of risk over legal ownership

❌However to it broad definition of “occupier” and premises being fair

This flexibility can create confusion for occupiers especially in complex arrangements involving landlords and tenants all whom may share control and could over extend liability

Second point

Lesser duty of care owed in 1984 than 1957

Explanation of lesser duty of care owed by occupiers in 1984 compared to 1957

The 1984 act imposes lesser duty of care on occupiers towards trespassers compared to lawful visitors - only the premises has to be kept safe

Case example

Keown - child who climbed a fired escape and fell but was not owed a duty of care because the premises itself was not dangerous

Why is lesser liability for trespassers a good thing

Shows that occupiers are not held liable where injury arises for reckless actions of indivuals who are not permitted to be engaging in those actions

❌however to lesser liability for trespassers being a good thing

Fails to protect vulnerable indivuals such as children who mat trespass without understanding the risks

Final point

The availability of volenti as a defence protects occupiers from unreasonable claims

Explanation of the availability of volenti as a defence

The availability of volenti as a defence provides vital protection for occupiers

Case example for volenti as a defence

Titchener

Why is having volenti available a a defence a good thing

Shows that the law respects personal responsability and that occupiers are not held responsible for actions willing by an individual - without this defence occupiers would constantly be at risk of litigation from people engaging in reckless acts

❌however to volenti being a good thing

Can sometimes shift the burden entirely onto the claimant even when the occupiers behaviour was borderline negligent, ad it arguable unfair to leave the claim without any compensation for the damage suffered