Occupiers' Liability

Key Understanding Goals:
- Understand the occupier's duty towards lawful visitors as per the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
- Understand the occupier's duty towards trespassers as per the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

Recognized duty of care for occupiers towards visitors developed through common law since the 19th century.
Visitors classified into different categories, each owed a different level of care:
- Contractors (e.g., hotel guests): Owed the highest level of duty; premises must be fit for purpose.
- Invitees (e.g., customers in a shop): Owed a lower duty requiring reasonable care against unusual dangers.
- Licensees (e.g., friends): Owed a general duty to warn of known concealed dangers.
- Trespassers (uninvited): Owed the least care; no active duty to ensure safety but cannot deliberately or recklessly cause harm.

Occupiers Liability Act 1957: Introduced a statutory duty for occupiers towards lawful visitors, covering dangers related to the state of the premises.
Occupiers Liability Act 1984: Established different duties concerning trespassers, emphasizing the notion of common humanity towards those who may be in danger.

Defendants under both Acts can be occupiers of premises, not strictly requiring ownership or tenancy.
No statutory definition; determined via case law.
Example cases:
- Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd (1966): Pub manager could be an occupier despite lacking ownership; liability was shared with employers.
- Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976): Local council deemed an occupier due to control over an empty house, despite not possessing it.
- Bailey v Armes (1999): No liability established for both occupants and supermarket regarding injuries to a child from access to a roof.

Definition: No statutory definition, but s 1(3)(a) of the 1957 Act references "fixed or moveable structures" including vessels, vehicles, and aircraft.
- Examples of included premises:
- A ship in dry dock
- A vehicle
- A lift
- A ladder
Application of Acts may vary; Revill v Newbery (1996) illustrates liability depends on actions and not merely the occupier's status.

Definition of Lawful Adult Visitors includes:
- Invitees: Invited to enter.
- Licensees: Implied or expressed permission for specific periods.
- Contractual Permission: E.g., ticket holders.
- Statutory Right of Entry: Meter readers, police exercising warrants.
Key Term: "Visitor" comprises invitees, licensees, contractual visitors, and statutory entrants.
Lawsuit requirements clarify expectations on occupiers' reasonable care per s 2(2):
- Occupiers must ensure reasonable safety for visitors’ purpose of presence.

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002): Shop owners made reasonable efforts to ensure safety; not liable for customer's own lack of caution causing injury.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016): Everyday tripping over minor defects doesn’t imply occupier liability unless defect poses a specific risk.

Higher Standards for Children (s 2(3)): Must guard against potential dangers as children are less careful than adults.
Case Law:
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922): Council liable for unprotected poisonous berries in a park, recognized as an allurement to children.
- Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955): No liability as parents are expected to supervise young children.
- Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000): Liability established when council failed to remove a dangerous abandoned boat attracting children.

Duty remains, but tradesmen expected to appreciate risks (s 2(3)(b)).
Roles v Nathan (1963): Occupiers not liable for fumes as chimney sweeps should understand the inherent risks of their profession.
Holly v Dyer (1997): Court confirmed that professionals should conduct dangerous tasks carefully, acknowledging their own liability for injuries.

Under s 2(4), occupier may not be liable for injuries caused by independent contractors if they:
1. Reasonably trusted the contractor.
2. Ensured contractor was competent.
3. Confirmed work was done properly.
Cases:
- Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd (1941): Occupier not liable for specialist lift maintenance failures.
- Wells v Cooper (1958): Confirmed that occupiers may not be liable if they reasonably relied on contractors’ competency and quality of work.

Defences include:
1. Contributory Negligence: Claimant’s own negligence reduces compensation.
2. Consent: A complete defence if successfully argued.
3. Warning Notices: Sufficient warnings must effectively inform of dangers as outlined in s 2(4).
4. Exclusion Clauses: Occupiers can limit duty but subject to Consumer Rights Act implications.

If the occupier is liable, the visitor can claim damages for:
1. Personal injury.
2. Property damage.
3. Potential for loss of earnings resulting from injuries sustained due to occupier negligence.

Traditionally, no duty owed to trespassers except not to act recklessly.
Common Humanity duty introduced through cases like British Rail Board v Herrington (1972), which established that occupiers must act with reasonable care to prevent injury to trespassers in certain conditions.

Duty applies if:
1. The occupier is aware of a danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists.
2. The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe trespassers are near the danger.
3. The occupier must take basic precautions against the danger.

Occupiers not liable for injuries due to obvious dangers:
- Ratcliff v McConnell (1999): No liability for injuries resulting from known risks in familiar environments.
- Consideration of risks relative to the context (time and location); e.g., Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003) highlights situational awareness for liability.
Courts have consistently reinforced the need for reasonable caution in acknowledging risks, often favoring occupiers.

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006): Liability not found; child appreciated risk, underscoring the need for child supervision by guardians.
Baldaccino v West Wittering (2008): Claim failed; injuries not attributable to the state of the premises but to the child’s actions.
Perry v Harris (2008): Emphasized the necessity of evaluating the child’s awareness of the risks in terms of potential liability.

Consistent with defences for lawful visitors:
1. Consent: Covering appreciation of risk.
2. Contributory Negligence: Reflecting the claimant's mistakes affecting damages.
3. Warnings: Noted effectiveness depending on the audience's understanding.

Under the 1984 Act, claims can only be made for personal injuries incurred by the trespasser on the premises owned by the occupier.

Lawful visitors are owed a common duty of care requiring reasonable safety measures.
Greater care must be taken towards children due to their impressionability.
Liability varies depending on whether the visitor is a lawful visitor or trespasser, with distinct duties and standards for each under the respective Acts.