Week Nine: Overview of Occupiers' Liability

BIRMINGHAM UK

Aim of the lecture:
- To appreciate the different ways in which an occupier may be liable for damage caused by the state of his or her premises.
- To distinguish between the effect of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
Key Question: Does the law on occupiers’ liability affect students at Aston University?

The law imposes duties on occupiers of land concerning the maintenance and use of their premises.
These duties are owed to third parties, such as:
- Visitors with permission (express or implied)
- Enquirers
- Trespassers
Occupiers are responsible for the safety of individuals on their premises as governed by two primary statutes:
- Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
- Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Duty to keep premises safe:
- Occupiers must maintain their premises in reasonably safe condition.
- Example: A hotel owner must ensure that floors are not excessively slippery.

Definition of a visitor:
- A visitor is defined as someone who has the consent of the occupier to be on the premises. Consent can be either express or implied.
- Examples of visitors include:
- Employees
- Customers
- Service providers (e.g., window cleaners, meter readers)
- Family members
Restrictions on permission are significant:
- If a visitor exceeds those restrictions, they become a trespasser.
- Example: A window cleaner is permitted to be in a kitchen but crosses into unauthorized areas.

Definition of an occupier (Wheat v Lacon [1966]):
- The occupier is the person in control of the premises at the time of an accident.
- Example: If premises are unoccupied, a contractor who causes a hazard may be liable.
Multiple occupiers:
- Yes, there can be more than one occupier (Wheat v Lacon case reaffirm).
- In a pub scenario, both the owner and the manager are considered occupiers.

Premises include:
- Buildings
- Open spaces
- Fixed or moveable structures, including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft (s 1(3)).
- Examples held include scaffolding, excavating machines, ships, and trains.

Duty extends to ensuring that visitors are reasonably safe for the purpose they are present. (s 2(2))
- No duty to eliminate all risks; visitors share responsibility for their safety.
- Example: In Lewis v Six Continents (2005), liability was not found as the injured adult fell from an open window not due to negligence of the hotel owner.

Factors determining reasonable care:
- Type of hazard
- Nature of premises
- Needs of visitors
Case Study: Cunningham v Reading Football Club (1991) demonstrates club liability due to foreseeable crowd violence.

Children:
- Under s 2(3)(a), it is acknowledged that children are less careful than adults.
- Case Examples:
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922): Corporation was liable for a child's accident due to lack of barriers around poisonous berries.
- B v JJB Sports (2006): Liability affirmed when a child slipped on a wet floor, as his behavior was not deemed unreasonable.
- Not all incidents imply liability for children:
- Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955): No liability when an unaccompanied child fell into a trench.
- Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden (2009): No liability for drowning when the mother failed to supervise her son in a dangerous area.
Visitors with Special Skills:
- Contractors must take precautions against job-related risks. (s 2(3)(b))
- Example: Roles v Nathan (1963) where chimney sweeps could not claim against the occupier for not warning of carbon monoxide risks.

Methods of discharging the duty:
- Removal of hazards when feasible (e.g., placing mats or barriers).
- Providing warnings appropriate to the type of visitor (recognizing specific needs).
- Legal outcomes indicate warnings may not be needed for obvious risks.
- Trustees of Portsmouth Youth Activities v Poppleton (2008) found no liability because the danger was obvious.

Common defenses for occupiers include:
- Volenti non fit injuria: The legal concept indicating a visitor accepts certain risks (s 2(5)).
- Contributory negligence: Taking into account the degree of responsibility of the injured party.
- Exemption of Liability: Exclusions communicated through adequate warnings to visitors.
- Example: Notice of 'wet paint.'

Focuses on individuals without permission (trespassers) and recognizes a limited duty of care.
Distinction is made between general trespassers and those entering premises without malice.

Duty owed under s 1(3):
- Must be aware of or reasonably believe a danger exists.
- Must know or reasonably believe the trespasser is close to the danger.
- Risk must be one against which the occupier should protect the trespasser.

British Railways Board v Herrington (1972): Liability established for injuries to a child who encountered a hazard due to a known risk.
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006): No liability found, as danger stemmed from the claimant’s own actions.
Ratcliff v McConnell (1999): The college not liable under the stereotypical dangerous actions of adults (e.g. diving).
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003): No liability for diving into a prohibited area where danger was self-inflicted.

Key distinctions between the 1957 and 1984 Acts:
- Under the 1957 Act, occupiers must ensure visitors are reasonably safe, while under the 1984 Act, the occupier's duty towards trespassers is limited and only extends to avoid harm where feasible.
Reminder: A visitor can become a trespasser in various scenarios.