Occupiers Liability Act 1957 & 84

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

s1(1)(a) - ‘an occupier of premises owes a common duty of care to visitors, in respect of dangers due to the state of their premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them’

elements

  • premises

s1(3)(a) - includes a person occupying or controlling any fixed (buildings, houses, land) or moveable structure , including any vehicle or aircraft

  • occupier

Wheat v Lacon - Definition: if a person has any degree of control over the premises it is enough to make them an occupier

premises can have more than one occupier

  • lawful visitor

Definition: anyone on the premises with the occupier’s permission (express/implied) is owed a duty of care

~ examples of implied permission:

. repeated visits

Lowery v Walker - if an occupier knows or should know that people are repeatedly visiting but does nothing to stop it they will have implied permission to enter

The Calgarth - ‘when you invite a person into your house to use the stairs, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters’

Harvey v Plymouth CC - no longer a lawful visitor after exceeding permission

. doctrine of allurement

Jolley v Sutton - when something on the land is seen as an attraction to children they are a lawful visitor

. entry to communicate with the occupier

Robson v Hallett

. statutory

s2(6) - those with statutory powers of entry are visitors, such as police officers with a warrant, even if they do not have permission

  • common duty of care

s2(2) - duty to ‘take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted or invited by the occupier to be there’

it is the visitor, rather than the premises that should be kept safe

~ Roles v Nathan - Lord Denning - the duty is the same as the duty of care in negligence

~ Tomlinson v Congleton - occupiers don’t need to guarantee the safety of visitors, their duty is to take reasonable care only

it is not the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or the reckless at the expense of the liberty of the rest of society

avoiding liability

an occupier can avoid liability if he can prove:

  • his conduct met the standard of the reasonable man in that situation

~ Tedstone v Bourne Leisure

  • warning signs

s2(4)(a) - where a visitor is damaged by a danger which he was warned, this alone will not dissolve the occupier of liability, unless it was enough in all the circumstances to make the visitor reasonably safe

a warning can be express or implied

~ Woollins v British Celanese - sign must be visible

  • parents who weren’t supervising their children in certain circumstances

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

~ Glasgow Corp v Taylor

~ Phipps v Rochester Corp - not in breach of duty if the reasonable parents would not allow their children into such a dangerous situation without proper supervision

  • specialised visitor

s2(3)(b) - an occupier may expect that a specialist visitor will be aware of & protect himself against risks within his own specialism

~ Roles v Nathan

~ Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants - the occupier would be liable in such circumstances as he had created a special or exceptional risk

defences

  • consent

s2(5) - the common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willing accepted as his by the visitor

~ Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc - not liable if C was aware of the obvious risk involved & chose to take it

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

s1(1)(a) - an occupier owes a duty to ‘persons other than that his visitors’ to take such care as is ‘reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they do not suffer injury on the premises’

elements

  • occupier

Wheat v Lacon - Definition: if a person has any degree of control over the premises it is enough to make them an occupier

premises can have more than one occupier

  • trespasser

can be said to be any person:

. who enters without invitation

. whose presence is either unknown to the occupier, or known to the occupier, but he has objected in a practical way such as locking a gate or by giving a verbal warning

a person with permission may become a trespasser if he exceeds the limit of that permission

~ limit of permission - Tomlinson v Congelton - became a trespasser as he was undertaking an activity that was not permitted

~ limit to time - Wood v Leadbitter - a person who stays longer than they should becomes a trespasser

~ limit to area - Pearson v Coleman Brothers - not a trespasser, as the prohibited area was not adequately marked off

~ limit as to purpose - The Calgarth - ‘when you invite a person into your house to use the stairs, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters’

  • precondition

s1(1)(a) - the claim must arise from the dangerous state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them

~ Keown v Coventry NHS Trust - claim failed as the accident happened through his own dangerous activities & not because of any fault with the building

  • duty owed

s1(3) - an occupier owes a duty of care in respect of a danger on his premises if:

  1. He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists

  2. He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe someone else is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into it

~ White v St Albans CC - the occupier must have actual knowledge from which a reasonable person would infer that the danger exists and that someone else may come into its vicinity

  1. the risk is one which in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection

~ Donoghue v Folkstone Properties

s1(4) - duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises because of the danger

~ Ratcliff v McConnell - there is no requirement to warn adult trespassers of obvious risk

discharging the duty owed

s1(5) - a duty of care can be discharged when an occupier has taken such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger or to discourage persons from incurring the risk (warning signs - Tomlinson v Congleton)

  • factors taken into account by the courts:

. likelihood of trespass

. seriousness of the injury risked

. cost & practicality of precautions

. likely age of any trespasser

. visibility & attractiveness of any danger

. obviousness of the danger

. common sense

. an occupier should not have to guard against an irresponsible minority

~ Platt v Liverpool CC

defences

  • contributory negligence

~ Young v Kent CC

  • consent

s1(6) - D owes no duty in respect of risks willingly accepted by the trespasser

~ Ratcliff v McConnell - aware of the risk & had accepted it

remedies

  • damages for death & personal injury

  • s1(8) - cannot claim damages for loss to property