Occupiers Liability

The Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 aim to ensure occupiers conduct themselves responsibly to prevent injuries to others.

Definition of Occupier: There is no statutory definition of 'occupier'. An occupier doesn't necessarily have to reside at the premises to be considered an occupier, as established in Wheat v Lacon.
Definition of Premises: 'Premises' is broadly defined, including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft, increasing the scope for successful claims.
Common Duty of Care: The 1957 Act establishes a common duty of care to all lawful visitors, promoting fairness and consistency compared to the varying duties owed to different types of lawful visitors before the Act.
Special Duty to Children (Section 2(3)(a)): Provides extra protection to vulnerable child visitors.
Responsibilities of Parents vs. Occupiers: Cases like Phipps v Rochester attempt to balance parental and occupier responsibilities, particularly for children of 'tender years'.
Older children are less susceptible to harm than younger children. The level of care depends on the risk, age, and awareness of the child.
Fact-Sensitive Cases: Jolley v Sutton emphasizes that OLA cases are highly fact-sensitive, making it difficult to predict outcomes and advise clients.
Professional Callers: Adults are expected to anticipate risks associated with their work, especially if they possess more knowledge than the occupier.
Independent Contractors (ICS): It is fair for the occupier who cannot be expected to check technical work. The claimant can claim in negligence.

Protection for Trespassers: It is morally right that trespassers are offered some protection under the law.
Common Law Prior to 1984 Act: Prior to the OLA 1984, common law was harsh on trespassers (Addie v Dumbreck).
BRB v Herrington: Established a duty of common humanity for trespassers, but the specifics of when and to what extent this duty arose were unclear, leading to the 1984 Act.
Restrictive Duty to Trespassers: The 1984 Act assumes no duty of care is owed to non-visitors, with three cumulative requirements under s.1(3) that operate restrictively, making it unlikely a duty will be owed to non-innocent trespassers.
The 1984 Act carefully balances the rights of occupiers and trespassers.
Damage to Property: Claimants can only recover for personal injury. There is no coverage for property damage belonging to trespassers.

Both Acts were provided to give clarity on when a duty would be owed to visitors.
The Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 are an improvement on the unclear common law.
However, these Acts are broad and fact-sensitive, leading to unpredictable and inconsistent decisions.